naming conventions

naming conventions

[Brad Bishop]

I wanted to take a stab at standardizing our naming conventions a little better.

In general, applications would be (loosely) named after the layer they are associated with.  For example:

phosphor-foo: application that can run on any card running OpenBMC
op-foo: application that can only run on OpenPOWER systems
ibm-foo: application that can only run on IBM systems
palmetto-foo: application specific to the Palmetto system

I chose phosphor-foo rather than obmc-foo to draw attention to the fact that ‘Phosphor’ refers to a reference implementation/distribution (ideally) of OpenBMC (similar to Poky/OpenEmbedded).

When naming things or filling out description fields in recipes, etc, please avoid the overly redundant name or description: obmc-phosphor or “Phosphor OpenBMC”.  Given that Phosphor is the reference for OpenBMC you can just say “Phosphor."

thoughts/feedback?

-brad

Re: naming conventions

[Kenneth Wilke]

Makes sense to me, seems like a good way to quickly identify the scope of purpose for each application.
________________________________________
From: openbmc <openbmc-bounces+kenneth.wilke=rackspace.com@lists.ozlabs.org> on behalf of Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 1:53 PM
To: OpenBMC Patches
Subject: naming conventions

I wanted to take a stab at standardizing our naming conventions a little better.

In general, applications would be (loosely) named after the layer they are associated with.  For example:

phosphor-foo: application that can run on any card running OpenBMC
op-foo: application that can only run on OpenPOWER systems
ibm-foo: application that can only run on IBM systems
palmetto-foo: application specific to the Palmetto system

I chose phosphor-foo rather than obmc-foo to draw attention to the fact that ‘Phosphor’ refers to a reference implementation/distribution (ideally) of OpenBMC (similar to Poky/OpenEmbedded).

When naming things or filling out description fields in recipes, etc, please avoid the overly redundant name or description: obmc-phosphor or “Phosphor OpenBMC”.  Given that Phosphor is the reference for OpenBMC you can just say “Phosphor."

thoughts/feedback?

-brad
_______________________________________________
openbmc mailing list
openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/openbmc

naming conventions

[John de la Garza]

Are there naming conventions that are preferred for functions?  I'm seeing
somethings named foo_free, free_foo, foo_init, init_foo, etc.

Consistency provides names that are easy to guess/learn.

examples from: linux/kernel/fork.c
####################################
static void free_thread_stack(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
        kmem_cache_free(thread_stack_cache, tsk->stack);                              
}

void thread_stack_cache_init(void)
{
        thread_stack_cache = kmem_cache_create("thread_stack", THREAD_SIZE,
                                              THREAD_SIZE, 0, NULL);                  
        BUG_ON(thread_stack_cache == NULL);                                           
}

if (init_new_context(p, mm))