Re: [RFC PATCH] add pci_{request,free}_irq take #3

[Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@free.fr>]

On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 02:04:21PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:36:07PM +0000, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> > > > - is_irq_valid() called by pci_request_irq()
> > >
> > > s/is_irq_valid/valid_irq/g methinks.
> > The point of the is_ prefix is to make it clear that we're returning 1
> > if it's true and 0 if it's false.
> > <checks thread on return values>
> > err... you said[1]:
> > > There are at least 3 idioms:
> > > [...]
> > > 2) return 1 on YES, 0 on NO.
> > > [...]
> > > #2 should only be used if condition in question is spelled nice:
> > Which I thought made sense, and that's why the is_ prefix is there now.
> > Am I missing something?
> 
> I think, looking at
> 
> 	if (irq_valid(irq))
> 
> one can be damn sure it follows common convention.
That maybe true, however the is_ prefix just rules out any ambiguity.
Using is/has/have/can for boolean functions whenever possible is a good
practice and I'd prefer to stick to it.
> That "is_" prefix just beats my ears. If is irq valid.
I understand your concerns on the "sound" issues though. Does
is_valid_irq() sound better to you?

Thanks,
Frederik