From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752679Ab1ABVcP (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Jan 2011 16:32:15 -0500 Received: from www84.your-server.de ([213.133.104.84]:47878 "EHLO www84.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751599Ab1ABVcO (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Jan 2011 16:32:14 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] new UDPCP Communication Protocol From: Stefani Seibold To: Daniel Baluta Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, shemminger@vyatta.com In-Reply-To: References: <1293982286-15389-1-git-send-email-stefani@seibold.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 22:33:13 +0100 Message-ID: <1294003993.5675.3.camel@wall-e> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: stefani@seibold.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Sonntag, den 02.01.2011, 21:48 +0200 schrieb Daniel Baluta: > Hello, > > I have some style comments, please read below. > > > +struct udpcp_statistics { > > + unsigned int txMsgs; /* Num of transmitted messages */ > > + unsigned int rxMsgs; /* Num of received messages */ > > + unsigned int txNodes; /* Num of receiver nodes */ > > + unsigned int rxNodes; /* Num of transmitter nodes */ > > + unsigned int txTimeout; /* Num of unsuccessful transmissions */ > > + unsigned int rxTimeout; /* Num of partial message receptions */ > > + unsigned int txRetries; /* Num of resends */ > > + unsigned int rxDiscardedFrags; /* Num of discarded fragments */ > > + unsigned int crcErrors; /* Num of crc errors detected */ > > Is there any strong reason to have this camel case naming? > I would prefer tx_msgs, rx_msgs etc.. > This cannot be fixed for compatiblity reasons. > > +struct udpcp_dest { > > + struct list_head list; > > + struct sk_buff_head xmit; > > + unsigned long tx_time; > > + unsigned long rx_time; > > + u32 txTimeout; > > + u32 rxTimeout; > > Here you have mixed naming conventions. I guess > tx_timeout will fit in better than txTimeout. > > > + u32 txRetries; > > + u32 rxDiscardedFrags; > > + struct sk_buff *xmit_wait; > > + struct sk_buff *xmit_last; > > + struct sk_buff *recv_msg; > > + struct sk_buff *recv_last; > > + struct udpcphdr lastmsg; > > + struct ipcm_cookie ipc; > > + struct flowi fl; > > + struct rtable *rt; > > + __be32 addr; > > + __be16 port; > > + u16 msgid; > > + u8 use_flag; > > + u8 insync; > > + u8 ackmode; > > + u8 chkmode; > > + u8 try; > > + u8 acks; > > + struct udp_sock udpsock; > > + struct sk_buff_head assembly; > > + u32 assembly_len; > > + struct udpcp_dest *assembly_dest; > > + wait_queue_head_t wq; > > + struct list_head destlist; > > + struct list_head udpcplist; > > + struct timer_list timer; > > + struct udpcp_statistics stat; > > + u32 pending; > > + unsigned long tx_timeout; > > + unsigned long rx_timeout; > > + void (*udp_data_ready) (struct sock *sk, int bytes); > > + u8 ackmode; > > + u8 chkmode; > > + u8 maxtry; > > + u8 acks; > > + u8 timeout; > > +/* overall UDPCP statistics */ > > +static atomic_t udpcp_txMsgs; > > +static atomic_t udpcp_rxMsgs; > > +static atomic_t udpcp_txNodes; > > +static atomic_t udpcp_rxNodes; > > +static atomic_t udpcp_txTimeout; > > +static atomic_t udpcp_rxTimeout; > > +static atomic_t udpcp_txRetries; > > +static atomic_t udpcp_rxDiscardedFrags; > > +static atomic_t udpcp_crcErrors; > > same here. > I think there is no nameing convention in linux, as i know it is a developer decision.