From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45581)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Rxz7M-0005PA-5Y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:03:21 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Rxz7I-0003Cx-5n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:03:16 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11827)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Rxz7H-0003Cq-Tg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:03:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4F3CE33E.4020600@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:06:38 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20120215184515.GA32249@redhat.com> <4F3BFFB3.5000806@siemens.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F3BFFB3.5000806@siemens.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: kill ugly macros
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

Am 15.02.2012 19:55, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> On 2012-02-15 19:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Remove ugly macros for field names,
>> change done by the following script:
>>
>> s#\bifq_prev\b#m_prev#g;
>> s#\bifq_next\b#m_next#g;
>> s#\bifs_prev\b#m_prevpkt#g;
>> s#\bifs_next\b#m_nextpkt#g;
>> s#\bifq_so\b#m_so#g;
>> s#\bm_next\b#m_hdr.mh_next#g;
>> s#\bm_prev\b#m_hdr.mh_prev#g;
>> s#\bm_nextpkt\b#m_hdr.mh_nextpkt#g;
>> s#\bm_prevpkt\b#m_hdr.mh_prevpkt#g;
>> s#\bm_flags\b#m_hdr.mh_flags#g;
>> s#\bm_len\b#m_hdr.mh_len#g;
>> s#\bm_data\b#m_hdr.mh_data#g;
>> s#\bm_size\b#m_hdr.mh_size#g;
>> s#\bm_dat\b#M_dat.m_dat_#g;
>> s#\bm_ext\b#M_dat.m_ext_#g;
> 
> Could you convert M_dat to m_dat as well (do not script, it's also a
> type)? It looks strange.

What are all these m_ and mh_ prefixes for struct fields even about?
When I have an mbuf, I know perfectly well that it is one, and that
m_hdr is a header of it.

So while we're cleaning up here, wouldn't mbuf->hdr->next make more
sense than mbuf->m_hdr->mh_next?

Kevin