Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S941948AbcJ0UVa (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:21:30 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:37270 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933826AbcJ0UV2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:21:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5812469C.3010403@gmail.com> References: <1477429146-27039-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> <1477429146-27039-7-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> <58122CC0.3090700@gmail.com> <5812469C.3010403@gmail.com> From: Rob Herring Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:20:35 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/13] of: Remove prefix "__of_" and prefix "__" from local function names To: Frank Rowand Cc: Pantelis Antoniou , Pantelis Antoniou , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1537 Lines: 38 On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/27/16 09:58, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 10/27/16 05:47, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:58 PM, wrote: >>>>> From: Frank Rowand >>>> >>>> I prefer to leave the prefixes and this is getting into pointless churn. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 10 +++++----- >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>> If I was just submitting this as a single patch, I would agree. >>> >>> But since I am making so many other changes, I think it makes >>> sense to do this as part of this series. It is broken apart >>> as a separate patch to be easy to review and not pollute any >>> of the other patches in the series. >>> >>> The prefixes add no value for a local function, but they do >>> add noise when reading code. >> >> The value is when reading the calling function, you know the function >> is a DT related function. You don't know it's a static function > > It is more than that. A common convention in drivers/of/ is that > function blah() acquires a lock, calls function __blah(), and > releases the lock. Any function other than blah() that wants > to call __blah() must also hold the proper lock. The functions > whose name this patch changes do not fit this pattern. Okay, fair enough. Rob