From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@ravnborg.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Steve French" <smfrench@gmail.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel coding style for if ... else which cross #ifdef
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 17:57:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0805240857l57e667fdicb240baf898f6296@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48383830.6060504@goop.org>
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>
>> We should actually do as you intially suggested and alwyas
>> define CONFIG_FOO no matter if FOO is built-in or module.
>> Because we do only want to distingush between the two in rare cases.
>>
>> But that is a separate patch and lets not do the same
>> mistage with CFG_*
>>
>
> I think pretty strongly that CFG_ and CONFIG_ should be exactly parallel.
> If you want to change the meaning of CONFIG_X in the presence of modules,
> then change CFG_X at the same time. Making them have different meanings
> will just confuse anyone wanting to convert #ifdef CONFIG_ code into
> if(CFG_) code.
>
>> I cooked up following patch - but I have not test-build a kernel yet.
>> We may use CFG_* here and there and clash is not good.
>>
>
> I have to say I'm not very keen on the CFG_* prefix. It doesn't have any
> inherent meaning and just looks like a redundant abbreviation of CONFIG_;
> something which actually expresses the notion that it's always a
> compile-time constant would be better. Not that I have any particularly
> good alternatives: CONST_? CCONST_? CONFIG_X_VAL? KCONFIG_? KONFIG_?
> KCONST_?
Don't know if this is really my place, but I could not agree more with
your characterisation of the CFG_* prefix and I will make the
following suggestion:
Why not use all-lowercase config_* names? It seems elegant, and fits
in with the notion that these are to be used not as macros, but as
ordinary constants.
(The only disadvantage I can see is that they will stand out less. But
I don't know how great the disadvantage is.)
You could even go further and make them real constants, something
along the lines of:
enum config_value { no, yes, mod };
static const enum config_value config_lockdep_support = yes;
(I believe the "static const" will prevent emission of this symbol in
the object file -- though I am not certain.)
You can now also test for specific values, e.g. if
(config_scsi_wait_scan == mod), in addition to simply testing the
truth value.
That concludes my suggestion.
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-24 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-23 19:11 Steve French
2008-05-23 20:42 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-05-23 20:49 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-05-23 21:05 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-05-23 23:03 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-05-24 5:43 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-05-24 5:42 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-05-24 6:42 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-05-24 10:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-24 10:49 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-05-24 11:27 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-05-24 14:35 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-24 14:39 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-05-24 14:41 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-24 14:46 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-05-24 15:36 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-05-24 15:45 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-24 15:57 ` Vegard Nossum [this message]
2008-05-24 16:02 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-24 16:40 ` Tom Spink
2008-05-24 16:42 ` Tom Spink
2008-05-24 20:38 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-24 20:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-05-24 20:51 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-24 20:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-05-24 21:15 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-25 23:57 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-05-26 0:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-05-24 18:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-05-24 18:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-05-24 18:51 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-05-24 18:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=19f34abd0805240857l57e667fdicb240baf898f6296@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vegard.nossum@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=smfrench@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®