From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] ide: add ata_set{_max}_pio() Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:21:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4686BB31.7040205@garzik.org> References: <200706302111.29322.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4686B70F.9080606@garzik.org> <200706302231.10032.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:38082 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751911AbXF3UVH (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:21:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200706302231.10032.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org 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 >> 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 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. Jeff