Re: [PATCH] new UDPCP Communication Protocol

Stefani Seibold
2011-01-02T21:33:13Z

Am Sonntag, den 02.01.2011, 21:48 +0200 schrieb Daniel Baluta:
> Hello,
>
> I have some style comments, please read below.
>
> > +struct udpcp_statistics {
> > + unsigned int txMsgs; /* Num of transmitted messages */
> > + unsigned int rxMsgs; /* Num of received messages */
> > + unsigned int txNodes; /* Num of receiver nodes */
> > + unsigned int rxNodes; /* Num of transmitter nodes */
> > + unsigned int txTimeout; /* Num of unsuccessful transmissions */
> > + unsigned int rxTimeout; /* Num of partial message receptions */
> > + unsigned int txRetries; /* Num of resends */
> > + unsigned int rxDiscardedFrags; /* Num of discarded fragments */
> > + unsigned int crcErrors; /* Num of crc errors detected */
>
> Is there any strong reason to have this camel case naming?
> I would prefer tx_msgs, rx_msgs etc..
>

This cannot be fixed for compatiblity reasons.

> > +struct udpcp_dest {
> > + struct list_head list;
> > + struct sk_buff_head xmit;
> > + unsigned long tx_time;
> > + unsigned long rx_time;
> > + u32 txTimeout;
> > + u32 rxTimeout;
>
> Here you have mixed naming conventions. I guess
> tx_timeout will fit in better than txTimeout.
>
> > + u32 txRetries;
> > + u32 rxDiscardedFrags;
> > + struct sk_buff *xmit_wait;
> > + struct sk_buff *xmit_last;
> > + struct sk_buff *recv_msg;
> > + struct sk_buff *recv_last;
> > + struct udpcphdr lastmsg;
> > + struct ipcm_cookie ipc;
> > + struct flowi fl;
> > + struct rtable *rt;
> > + __be32 addr;
> > + __be16 port;
> > + u16 msgid;
> > + u8 use_flag;
> > + u8 insync;
> > + u8 ackmode;
> > + u8 chkmode;
> > + u8 try;
> > + u8 acks;
> > + struct udp_sock udpsock;
> > + struct sk_buff_head assembly;
> > + u32 assembly_len;
> > + struct udpcp_dest *assembly_dest;
> > + wait_queue_head_t wq;
> > + struct list_head destlist;
> > + struct list_head udpcplist;
> > + struct timer_list timer;
> > + struct udpcp_statistics stat;
> > + u32 pending;
> > + unsigned long tx_timeout;
> > + unsigned long rx_timeout;
> > + void (*udp_data_ready) (struct sock *sk, int bytes);
> > + u8 ackmode;
> > + u8 chkmode;
> > + u8 maxtry;
> > + u8 acks;
> > + u8 timeout;
> > +/* overall UDPCP statistics */
> > +static atomic_t udpcp_txMsgs;
> > +static atomic_t udpcp_rxMsgs;
> > +static atomic_t udpcp_txNodes;
> > +static atomic_t udpcp_rxNodes;
> > +static atomic_t udpcp_txTimeout;
> > +static atomic_t udpcp_rxTimeout;
> > +static atomic_t udpcp_txRetries;
> > +static atomic_t udpcp_rxDiscardedFrags;
> > +static atomic_t udpcp_crcErrors;
>
> same here.
>

I think there is no nameing convention in linux, as i know it is a
developer decision.