Re: [PATCH 2/2] xhci: Rename SEGMENT_SIZE and SEGMENT_SHIFT as the former is used in a.out.h

[Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 07:07:36PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> I suspect the question is whether your symbols are likely to collide with
> core symbols rather than symbols of unrelated drivers - after all, you're
> unlikely to be #including the headers of those drivers.
> 
> I personally prefer to prefix the names of symbols in drivers with something
> consistent for that driver to reduce namespace collisions - but I know not
> everyone cares about that.  Linux doesn't have much of a policy in this area
> though.  I also like it because it makes tags easier to use (fewer definitions
> of the same symbol).
> 
> Whether you should go back and rename existing xHCI functions, I don't know.
> I'd be tempted to leave it for now unless there's some collision.  However,
> things like MAX_HC_PORTS does seem a little generic.  Further #define
> collisions go unnoticed under some circumstances.  Two obvious cases are (a)
> redefinition of a symbol because it happens to be the same value and (b) where
> the second one is accidentally suppressed because it is wrapped in a
> conditional.

Hmm, yeah, I think it doesn't make sense to change all the macros now.
If I were starting a new driver, I think I would use a common prefix.
I'll add the macro renaming to my todo list and see if I can get some
newbie to take it on. 8)

> Perhaps we should move to C++ and use namespaces;-)

Hah!

Sarah Sharp