Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/11] Add KVM support for S390x

[malc <av1474@comtv.ru>]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Markus Armbruster wrote:

> malc <av1474@comtv.ru> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> On 02.12.2009, at 09:12, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:25:03PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> On 30.11.2009, at 19:18, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 02:23:13PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> [...]
> >> >>>> +
> >> >>>> +static void _kvm_s390_interrupt(CPUState *env, int type, uint32_t parm, uint64_t parm64, int vm)
> >> >>>> +{
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Why such a name starting with an underscore?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Because that's the internal function that gets used by the exported, properly named ones. Are there any conventions on how to declare private functions?
> >> > 
> >> > I don't think there is any convention, but I know malc always complains
> >> > about not introducing names starting with an underscore.
> >
> > Yeah he does.
> >
> >> 
> >> Hm - I just wanted to clearly show that this is an internal API, nobody 
> >> should really have to call directly. But I'm open for other naming 
> >> suggestions.
> >
> > Thing is, in 7.1.3#1 standard says (after explicitly reserving __ _[A-Z]
> > for any use):
> >          -- All  identifiers  that  begin  with  an  underscore are
> >             always reserved for use as identifiers with file  scope
> >             in both the ordinary and tag name spaces.
> >
> > And i could never really understand (or recall/comprehend when asked
> > and being given an answer) what this entails. (Anyone?)
> 
> Later in 7.1.3:
> 
>     If the program declares or defines an identifier in a context in
>     which it is reserved (other than as allowed by 7.1.4), or defines a
>     reserved identifier as a macro name, the behavior is undefined.
> 
> This gives implementations of the standard (compiler + libc) license to
> use reserved identifiers for their own purposes.  If they clash with the
> user's identifiers, and things break, the user gets to keep the pieces.

Yes, that's how i would interpret it too (as stated in another message)

> 
> Now, it's quite unlikely that _kvm_s390_interrupt() clashes with
> anything in practice.  It does, however, set a bad example.

Indeed.

> 
> > So i would go with something imaginative like internal_do_not_use_kvm*,
> > but that's just me. You can go wild here, leading underscore doesn't look
> > attractive though.
> 
> Why not kvm_s390_interrupt_internal(), or even kvm_s390_interrupt_()?
> 

-- 
mailto:av1474@comtv.ru