Re: [PATCH] usb driver for intellon based PLC like devolo dlan duo

[Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, David Miller wrote:

> From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:07:52 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> > FWIW, I think it's pretty common to name static functions in a .c file, 
> > which perform auxiliary function, not really specific to the context 
> > without the respective context-prefix.
> 
> I'll remember to think of you next time I run grep on the tree.

Thanks David, very nice of you:-)

Once an MMC driver has been submitted for a specific platform, which 
apparently has been derived from an MMC driver for a similar platform. And 
the submitter has preserved the function prefix... So most functions in 
the two drivers were called equally. Now that was bad, and I was the one 
to complain about it, no idea what was the end result with that driver 
though.

What I actually meant is that I don't necessarily consider it very 
inconvenient if different drivers have functions like reg_write() or 
whatever. I cannot think of many situations when this can be confusing. If 
you are working with that file and see a call to reg_write() you know 
where to look for it. If you have an Oops in that function - you just look 
one function up in the backtrace. One of the cases that might be difficult 
is if you have an Oops in such a function without a backtrace and it is in 
a module. Ok, in this case it might be difficult to find out what that 
was. Otherwise - why would you want to grep the sources for such a 
function?

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/