From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.12]:11939 "EHLO mailout2.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753121Ab3GYJwz (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:52:55 -0400 Received: from eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.245]) by mailout2.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MQH00KF2KO7JQ60@mailout2.w1.samsung.com> for linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:52 +0100 (BST) Message-id: <51F0F573.5090709@samsung.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:52:51 +0200 From: Sylwester Nawrocki MIME-version: 1.0 To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com, laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com, hverkuil@xs4all.nl, kyungmin.park@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/5] V4L2: Rename subdev field of struct v4l2_async_notifier References: <1374516287-7638-1-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <1374516287-7638-5-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> In-reply-to: Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Gueannadi, On 07/24/2013 01:26 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >> > This is a purely cosmetic change. Since the 'subdev' member >> > points to an array of subdevs it seems more intuitive to name >> > it in plural form. > > Well, I was aware of the fact, that "subdev" is an array and that the > plural form of "subdev" would be "subdevs" :-) It was kind of a conscious > choice. I think, both ways can be found in the kernel: using singulars and > plurals for array names. Whether one of them is better than the other - no > idea. My personal preference is somewhat with the singular form as in, say > "subdev array" instead of "subdevs array," i.e. as an adjective, but I > really don't care all that much :) Feel free to change if that's important > for you or for others on V4L :) Sorry, I expected this patch to be a bit controversial... :) I agree it might be a matter of taste, but subdev/num_subdevs pair bothered me quite a bit so I've decided to post the patch anyway. If you don't mind that much I'd like to keep that patch in this series. -- Thanks, Sylwester