Re: [RFC PATCH] add pci_{request,free}_irq take #3

[Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:36:07PM +0000, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> > > - is_irq_valid() called by pci_request_irq()
> >
> > s/is_irq_valid/valid_irq/g methinks.
> The point of the is_ prefix is to make it clear that we're returning 1
> if it's true and 0 if it's false.
> <checks thread on return values>
> err... you said[1]:
> > There are at least 3 idioms:
> > [...]
> > 2) return 1 on YES, 0 on NO.
> > [...]
> > #2 should only be used if condition in question is spelled nice:
> Which I thought made sense, and that's why the is_ prefix is there now.
> Am I missing something?

I think, looking at

	if (irq_valid(irq))

one can be damn sure it follows common convention.

That "is_" prefix just beats my ears. If is irq valid.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/