From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] libata-acpi: clean up parameters and misc stuff Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:12:57 -0400 Message-ID: <46340D39.9030001@garzik.org> References: <11772636663949-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <463398B4.1010004@garzik.org> <463408CF.1060200@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <463408CF.1060200@gmail.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, trenn@suse.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, forrest.zhao@gmail.com, kristen.c.accardi@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Tejun Heo wrote: >>> This patch cleans up libata-acpi such that it looks similar to other >>> libata files. This patch doesn't introuce any behavior changes. >>> >>> * make libata-acpi functions take ata_device instead of ata_port + >>> device index >>> * s/atadev/adev/ >>> * de-indent local variable declarations >> I prefer 'dev' over 'adev', unless that makes the code in question more >> ambiguous. > > Alan is preferring adev over dev and I thought that might be better in > the spirit of 'ap'. I don't really care about the naming tho. Will > convert to dev. It won't increase ambiguity. Cool. You will see 'dev' used universally in the code I wrote. It also matches well with "ata_dev_" prefixes, which are a bit better than "ata_adev_" prefix if one were to apply the alternate policy. Yes, I sometimes spend way too much time pay attention to trivialities :) Jeff