From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47264)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>) id 1RyNvE-0006AS-RJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:32:29 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>) id 1RyNv9-0006XP-6X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:32:24 -0500
Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]:15892)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>) id 1RyNv8-0006X9-T2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:32:19 -0500
Message-ID: <4F3E56DF.5020505@siemens.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:32:15 +0100
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20120215184515.GA32249@redhat.com> <4F3BFFB3.5000806@siemens.com>
	<4F3CE33E.4020600@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F3CE33E.4020600@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: kill ugly macros
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

On 2012-02-16 12:06, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 15.02.2012 19:55, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>> On 2012-02-15 19:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> Remove ugly macros for field names,
>>> change done by the following script:
>>>
>>> s#\bifq_prev\b#m_prev#g;
>>> s#\bifq_next\b#m_next#g;
>>> s#\bifs_prev\b#m_prevpkt#g;
>>> s#\bifs_next\b#m_nextpkt#g;
>>> s#\bifq_so\b#m_so#g;
>>> s#\bm_next\b#m_hdr.mh_next#g;
>>> s#\bm_prev\b#m_hdr.mh_prev#g;
>>> s#\bm_nextpkt\b#m_hdr.mh_nextpkt#g;
>>> s#\bm_prevpkt\b#m_hdr.mh_prevpkt#g;
>>> s#\bm_flags\b#m_hdr.mh_flags#g;
>>> s#\bm_len\b#m_hdr.mh_len#g;
>>> s#\bm_data\b#m_hdr.mh_data#g;
>>> s#\bm_size\b#m_hdr.mh_size#g;
>>> s#\bm_dat\b#M_dat.m_dat_#g;
>>> s#\bm_ext\b#M_dat.m_ext_#g;
>>
>> Could you convert M_dat to m_dat as well (do not script, it's also a
>> type)? It looks strange.
> 
> What are all these m_ and mh_ prefixes for struct fields even about?
> When I have an mbuf, I know perfectly well that it is one, and that
> m_hdr is a header of it.
> 
> So while we're cleaning up here, wouldn't mbuf->hdr->next make more
> sense than mbuf->m_hdr->mh_next?

I tend to agree - as we are already touching so many files, and the
names also get longer due to this. Mind to respin the series?

Thanks,
Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux