From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753712Ab3C2AKu (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:10:50 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:17570 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753076Ab3C2AKt (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:10:49 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,369,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="308924766" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:10:48 -0700 From: Sarah Sharp To: David Howells Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xhci: Rename SEGMENT_SIZE and SEGMENT_SHIFT as the former is used in a.out.h Message-ID: <20130329001048.GK5995@xanatos> References: <20130328201505.GC5995@xanatos> <20130328184827.29679.62426.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20130328184835.29679.62285.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <32349.1364509973@warthog.procyon.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32349.1364509973@warthog.procyon.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:32:53PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Sarah Sharp wrote: > > > I'm a little bit confused about your description for the second one. > > Did you need to change the #defines names because they could conflict > > with other drivers when the xHCI driver is built in? Or is there some > > other point I'm missing? > > Sorry, I should say. I'm trying to clean up the UAPI headers and I noticed > that the xHCI SEGMENT_SIZE macro is named the same as one defined by a.out.h > that cannot be changed as it is seen by userspace. Although it's unlikely > that within the kernel they are unlikely to collide, one cannot be entirely > sure that will stay true as new arches get added (hopefully no one will add > new arches that use a.out format). It seems best that the xHCI one be renamed > if possible. I guess my question is a deeper one: do we need to rename all the xHCI macros to have the XHCI_ prefix, in order to avoid future collision? For example, one of the macros is MAX_HC_PORTS, which could possibly be used by other host drivers in the future. Note that I'm not asking you to do this, just if it needs to be done. Sarah Sharp