Re: [LTP] [PATCH] libs: adopt lib* prefix instead of tst_* for libs/

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

> > > I'd keep them separate from core library. For non-core libraries, I'd go
> > with
> > > something more distinct, like "ltp" prefix for file and function names.


> Thanks!

> > > When I look at "libnuma.h" I'd have to think for a bit if this is
> > > header from numa-devel
> > > or LTP. "ltpnuma.h" seems (to me) more clear that it's not LTP core
> > > nor numa-devel.


> Good point, but the ltp* prefix sounds too serious to me. Anything with
> the ltp* prefix inside an LTP makes me think it's critical information.

+1

> Perhaps we can use a lightweight name for the extra libs/:

> est_*: extra test library
> xst_*: extened test library
> lst_*: ltp test library

> I prefer to use lst_*, which is not only different from tst_*, but also
> implies
> this is ltp tst_ things.

> What do you think? or any better prefix?

Given that include "libfoo.h" should be local header and include <foo.h> should
be header from /usr/lib* I would be ok with either keep things as they are or
use the original Li's proposal.

For me personally is more useful to know whether header can be used in the old
API (i.e. "tst_" prefix means source is converted in the new C API) than whether
header is from extra library.

Kind regards,
Petr

> > > my 2 cents,
> > > Jan


> > That's exactly why I was suggesting to keep `tst_*`, which is more for
> > code-library. The `lib*` prefix is pretty generic and we need something
> > more specific for LTP.


> Indeed.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp