From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34732)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1avJuB-0003cG-GB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 03:29:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1avJu8-0004T7-AU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 03:29:03 -0400
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
References: <1461119601-4936-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
	<1461119601-4936-2-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
	<571F4A36.7060106@redhat.com> <20160427060252.GB18476@voom.redhat.com>
	<87bn4v362f.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <572064DF.6030802@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:28:57 +0200
In-Reply-To: <572064DF.6030802@redhat.com> (Thomas Huth's message of "Wed, 27
	Apr 2016 09:06:07 +0200")
Message-ID: <87potbzf0m.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC for-2.7 01/11] qdt: IEEE1275-style device
 tree utility code
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: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Cc: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>, aik@ozlabs.ru, agraf@suse.de, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, crosthwaite.peter@gmail.com

Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:

> On 27.04.2016 08:43, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:00:06PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> On 20.04.2016 04:33, David Gibson wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Property functions
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +QDTProperty *qdt_new_property(const gchar *name, gconstpointer val, gsize len)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    QDTProperty *prop = g_malloc0(sizeof(*prop) + len);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    prop->name = g_strdup(name);
>>>>> +    prop->len = len;
>>>>> +    memcpy(prop->val, val, len);
>>>>> +    return prop;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static QDTProperty *getprop_(const QDTNode *node, const gchar *name)
>>>>
>>>> Underscore at the end looks somewhat strange ... can't you simply drop that?
>>>
>>> Well.. the idea was that the _ versions are the "internal" ones,
>>> whereas external users will generally use the non-underscore version
>> 
>> I've seen that convention used before.  It's fine with me.
>
> Can't remember to have seen that convention before ... I know that some
> people use the underscore at the beginning to mark an internal function,
> but at the end?
> So if you really want to use the underscore, what about putting it at
> the beginning instead?

C99 7.1.3  Reserved identifiers:

         -- All identifiers  that  begin  with  an  underscore  are
            always  reserved for use as identifiers with file scope
            in both the ordinary and tag name spaces.

[...]