Re: [PATCH 13/15] ide: add ata_set{_max}_pio()

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Saturday 30 June 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > This has been changing recently since "ide_" prefix seems to have
> > negative emotional connotations. :-)
> > 
> > New patches for drivers/ide should use exclusively the "ata_" prefix.
> 
> So this choice to be inconsistent was made based entirely on fashion?
> 
> This is the same as using a different coding style in one area of the 
> IDE driver, when the rest of the IDE driver uses another coding style.
> 
> It violates the Principle of Least Surprise.
> 
> I cannot see any harm in continuing to use the prefix the IDE driver has 
> been using for over a decade, while I can see how inconsistency

This allowed easy distinguishment between old / new code.

> >> particularly when libata uses the "ata_" prefix almost exclusively.
> > 
> > I don't see *any* problem with this since libata exists in the separate
> > directory and the amount of code shared between libata and drivers/ide
> > equals *zero* (not counting <linux/ata.h> containing defines etc).
> 
> There are many opportunities for confusion:  global grep.  oops traces. 
>   General reviewer expectations ("oooh, I grepped for ide_xxx because 
> thats what all the functions use, except for this ONE function that's 
> different")
> 
> You are living in a global namespace.  Directories are irrelevant.

OK, I got your point and will fix the offending patches.

Thanks,
Bart