Re: [RFC PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: flesh out our naming conventions.

["Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> writes:

> On 8/6/20 1:40 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Mention a few of the more common naming conventions we follow in the
>> code base including common variable names and function prefix and
>> suffix examples.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  CODING_STYLE.rst | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/CODING_STYLE.rst b/CODING_STYLE.rst
>> index 427699e0e42..17cb42ba761 100644
>> --- a/CODING_STYLE.rst
>> +++ b/CODING_STYLE.rst
>> @@ -109,9 +109,32 @@ names are lower_case_with_underscores_ending_with_a_t, like the POSIX
>>  uint64_t and family.  Note that this last convention contradicts POSIX
>>  and is therefore likely to be changed.
>>  
>> +Variable Naming Conventions
>> +---------------------------
>> +
>> +A number of common short naming conventions exist for variables that use
>> +common QEMU types. For example when dealing with the architecture
>> +independent CPUState this is often in a ``cs`` pointer variable
>> +whereas the concrete CPUArchState us usually held in a pointer called
>> +``env``.
>> +
>> +Likewise in device emulation code the common DeviceState is usually
>> +called ``dev`` with the actual state structure often the very terse
>> +``s`` or maybe ``foodev``.
>> +
>> +Function Naming Conventions
>> +---------------------------
>> +
>>  When wrapping standard library functions, use the prefix ``qemu_`` to alert
>>  readers that they are seeing a wrapped version; otherwise avoid this prefix.
>>  
>> +Functions that are expected to be called with some sort of lock held
>> +usually have the suffix ``_locked``.
>> +
>> +Public functions (i.e. declared in public headers) tend to be prefixes
>> +with the subsystem or file they came from. For example ``tlb_`` for
>> +functions from ``cputlb.c`` or ``cpu_`` for functions from cpus.c.
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> agree with the sentiment, for cpus.c I would suggest cpus_ though.
>
> There are otherwise so many cpu_ functions and cpu.c modules.. using
> cpus_ would help a lot to understand that it is part of softmmu/cpus.c
>
> Wdyt?

I was mainly documenting existing conventions - I guess cpus is a poor
example to follow as it has so many cpu_ functions in them. I guess the
prefix is a loose association at best.

> Also cpus.c contains a lot of qemu_ that is not used to wrap standard
> library functions.

Certainly a lot of the static internal functions could be shorted names
dropping the qemu_ prefix. Most uses of qemu_ across the code base are
utility functions although not all wrap existing functions.

> After the current cpus refactoring, I could take care of improving the
> naming conventions in cpus.c

I wouldn't expend a lot of effort on a grand re-naming but certainly
it's worth cleaning stuff up as you go moving things about.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>> +
>>  Block structure
>>  ===============
>>  
>> 


-- 
Alex Bennée