Re: [PATCH 13/21] amd64_edac: add f10-and-later methods-p3

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:47:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> [..]
> 
> > What i point out below is precisely what you say is ineligible 
> > under:
> > 
> > > > Of course, we don't have to use StinkyIdentifiers anywhere else.  
> > 
> > I'd extend that rule to say that StinkyIdentifiers should only be 
> > used for hw API definitions/constants - macros, enums - not really 
> > local variable names. The moment they are allowed into local 
> > variables the stuff below happens.
> 
> to agree with Andrew, at a certain point in time I thought that 
> having the same register bit names as in the docs would be 
> preferential when you look at the docs and what the code does. But 
> Ingo's also quite right: we can't have "normal kernel coding 
> style" and StinkyIdentifiers
> :) in the same source file.
> 
> /me locking himself back in the patch creation basement.

I think you can still cleanly use those identifiers for hardware 
constants, register offsets and similar. But if it shows up in a 
variable (or function) name, it has spread too far IMHO :-)

And it's not like we dont have our own historic mistakes in that 
area, right in the heart of Linux - just type:

  git grep Page mm/*.c

and cringe.

IIRC i might even have added a new method or two to that array of 
CrappyPageAPIs, many years ago. (back in the days when i wrote lot 
of crappy code myself ;-) Oh, PageHighMem() it is.

	Ingo