"Jesper Juhl" <[email protected]> writes:
> I think it's a good thing that we have to take a little more care when
> choosing global function and variable names... Take up() for example -
> in my (very humble) oppinion that is a very bad name for a global
> function - it clashes too easily with local function and variable
> names, and a programmer who's not careful may end up calling the
> global up() when he wants the local and vice versa (a much better name
> would have been sem_up() - should we change that???).
Possibly, but it could then conflict with something else. Anytime we
add/change some global symbol, we would have to scan entire kernel
for conflicts (authors of (yet) off-tree things would hate us).
I don't think it's practical, especially with, IMHO, no real gain.
> I don't agree with you and I don't know how to convince you, but I
> still appreciate your feedback.
> Thanks.
You're welcome. I'd be more happy if I could say I like the idea :-(
> I'll leave it to people higher in the hierarchy to decide if these
> patches should be applied or not ;)
Sure.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
