Re: [PATCH vRFC 3/8] treewide: rename firmware_request_platform()
From: Mukesh Ojha
Date: Mon Feb 26 2024 - 08:23:15 EST
On 2/26/2024 6:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 04:22:09PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
On 2/24/2024 11:06 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:42:35AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 04:33:40PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 07:15:45AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 07:21:31AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:30:28PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
Rename firmware_request_platform() to request_firmware_platform()
to be more concrete and align with the name of other request
firmware family functions.
Sorry, but no, it should be "noun_verb" for public functions.
News to me, do we have this documented somewhere?
Not really, but searching makes it nicer.
And yes, I violated this in the past in places, and have regretted it...
Care to share a few examples of regret?
get_device()
put_device()
kill_device()
vs. a saner:
kobject_get()
kobject_put()
kobject_del()
Learn from the mistakes of my youth please :)
Thanks for the history.,
In that case, should we fix this verb_noun cases ?
request_firmware()
request_firmware_into_buf()
request_firmware_nowarn()
request_firmware_direct()
request_firmware_cache()
request_partial_firmware_into_buf()
release_firmware()
That would provide consistency, right?
Yes, Below names look better..
firmware_request()
firmware_request_into_buf()
firmware_request_nowarn()
firmware_request_direct()
firmware_request_cache()
firmware_request_partial_into_buf()
firmware_release()
@Luis/Others, Can we do this change ?
-Mukesh
thanks,
greg k-h