From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60763) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGOlk-0006ok-FU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:37:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGOlj-0003m1-GQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:37:20 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:36033) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGOlj-0003lx-9t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:37:19 -0400 Received: by wiwc10 with SMTP id c10so1910096wiw.4 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <5061511C.4040504@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:37:16 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1348236465-23124-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <505C8E76.1030104@redhat.com> <20120921162428.GS16157@illuin> <20120924181442.GV16157@illuin> In-Reply-To: <20120924181442.GV16157@illuin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] Add infrastructure for QIDL-based device serialization List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Michael Roth Cc: Blue Swirl , peter.maydell@linaro.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, eblake@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 24/09/2012 20:14, Michael Roth ha scritto: >>> > > I went with qUppercase because it avoids all the previous issues with >>> > > using leading underscores, and it's reserved in terms of QEMU coding >>> > > guidelines as far as I can tell (we generally require leading capital >>> > > for typedefs and lowercase for variable names, and can work around >>> > > exceptions on a case by case basis by using QIDL() or some other name). >>> > > I also had it as q_* for a bit but that didn't seem much better on the >>> > > eyes we looking at converted structures. >> > >> > It looks like Hungarian notation and very much unlike other QEMU code. >> > I'd use q_ or qidl_ prefix instead, or rather QIDL(). >> > > I wanted some way to distinguish from other qemu code to avoid conflicts, > but i think q_* seems reasonable if we reserve the prefix via CODING_STYLE. > Then for conflicts outside our control we can either use a different name > for the annotations or use the long-form QIDL() style depending on the > circumstances. I'm not sure why we need two ways to say the same thing... I know it's just bikeshedding to some extent, but I'd really like to standardize on a single form. Paolo