From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: harry <harry@hebutterworth.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: USB virt 2.6 split driver patch series
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:24:29 +0000
Message-ID: <1132655069.5956.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1132579104.31295.110.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20051121134940.GA25045@snarc.org>
	<1132581661.31295.134.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<5d7aca950511210641n23d79fduc2e462c3dcd07810@mail.gmail.com>
	<1132586050.31295.145.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<5d7aca950511210727i741148efl71f025577680d994@mail.gmail.com>
	<1132587554.31295.154.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<5d7aca950511210902j5002bbfdxe52b1a32517d6c8b@mail.gmail.com>
	<1132593451.31295.171.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<5d7aca950511211759i63ed353al8f95ea411bbd49ff@mail.gmail.com>
	<5d7aca950511211800j9799a2dy3186ef4133213417@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <5d7aca950511211800j9799a2dy3186ef4133213417@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: NAHieu <nahieu@gmail.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 11:00 +0900, NAHieu wrote:
> On 11/22/05, NAHieu <nahieu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I had a look at xenidc code, and found some code like this:
> >
> > --
> > static void xenidc_endpoint_destroy_1(xenidc_callback * callback)
> > {
> >         trace();
> >
> >         {
> >                 xenidc_endpoint_callback *endpoint_callback =
> >                     container_of(callback, xenidc_endpoint_callback, callback);
> >
> >                 endpoint_callback->destroyed = 1;
> >
> >                 xenidc_work_wake_up();
> >         }
> > }
> > --
> >
> > Why name it *destroy_1? it is a common practice to name a local
> > function with _ or __ as prefix. So for example
> > xenidc_endpoint_destroy_1() should be named
> > _xenidc_endpoint_destroy_1() or __xenidc_endpoint_destroy_1()
> >
> 
> Oops, typo. I meant _xenidc_endpoint_destroy_1() should be named
> _xenidc_endpoint_destroy() or __xenidc_endpoint_destroy()
> 

This is for chains of functions which are logically part of the same
operation but are split by asynchronous callbacks. The first function is
called something: xenidc_endpoint_destroy() for example the next
xenidc_endpoint_destroy_1, the next xenidc_endpoint_destroy_2 and so on.
Leading underscores won't work past _1.  Unless you want _ then __ then
___ :-)  Also identifiers with two leading underscores are reserved by
ANSI C for the C compiler implementation so I think it's not a good idea
to use them.

Thanks

Harry.