|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [RFC PATCH 17/17] CODING_STYLE: Add a section on header guards naming conventions
On 2024-07-19 17:21, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:On 19.07.2024 00:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 18.07.2024 01:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 17.07.2024 02:20, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 16.07.2024 02:43, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>> On 13.07.2024 00:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I further have to note that, as indicated during the earlier discussion, >>>>>>>>>> I still cannot see how occasional ambiguity is going to be dealt with. >>>>>>>>>> IOW from the rules above two different headers could still end up with >>>>>>>>>> the same guard identifier. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe something like this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "In the event of naming collisions, exceptions to the coding style may >>>>>>>>> be made at the discretion of the contributor and maintainers." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmm, maybe I wasn't clear enough then. My take is that the scheme should >>>>>>>> simply not allow for possible collisions. Neither the contributor nor the >>>>>>>> reviewer may spot such a collision, and it may therefore take until the >>>>>>>> first full scan that one is actually noticed. Which I consider too late >>>>>>>> in the process, even if we already were at the point where commits were >>>>>>>> checked pre-push. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at the proposal, copy/pasted here for convenience: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - private headers -> <dir>_<filename>_H >>>>>>> - asm-generic headers -> ASM_GENERIC_<filename>_H >>>>>>> - #ifndef ASM_GENERIC_X86_PERCPU_H >>>>>>> #define ASM_GENERIC_X86_PERCPU_H >>>>>>> //... >>>>>>> #endif /* ASM_GENERIC_X86_PERCPU_H */ >>>>>>> - arch/<architecture>/include/asm/<subdir>/<filename>.h -> ASM_<architecture>_<subdir>_<filename>_H >>>>>>> - #ifndef ASM_X86_DOMAIN_H >>>>>>> #define ASM_X86_DOMAIN_H >>>>>>> //... >>>>>>> #endif /* ASM_X86_DOMAIN_H */ >>>>>>> - xen/include/xen/<filename>.h -> XEN_<filename>_H >>>>>>> - xen/include/xen/<subdir>/<filename>.h -> XEN_<subdir>_<filename>_H >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only possibility for collision that I can see is from the first >>>>>>> point: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - private headers -> <dir>_<filename>_H >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think this is the only possibility of collisions. The <subdir>_<filename> >>>>>> parts can similarly cause problems if either of the two involved names contains >>>>>> e.g. a dash (which would need converting to an underscore) or an underscore. To >>>>>> avoid this, the name separators (slashes in the actual file names) there may need >>>>>> representing by double underscores. >>>>> >>>>> I am OK with you two underscores as name separator (slashes in the >>>>> actual file names). Would you do it for all levels like this? >>>>> >>>>> - arch/arm/arm64/lib/something.h -> ARM__ARM64__LIB__SOMETHING_H >>>>> - arch/arm/arm32/lib/something.h -> ARM__ARM32__LIB__SOMETHING_H >>>>> - arch/x86/lib/something.h -> X86__LIB__SOMETHING_H >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think it is better than the below: >>>>> >>>>> - arch/arm/arm64/lib/something.h -> ARM_ARM64__LIB__SOMETHING_H >>>>> - arch/arm/arm32/lib/something.h -> ARM_ARM32__LIB__SOMETHING_H >>>>> - arch/x86/lib/something.h -> X86_LIB__SOMETHING_H >>>> >>>> Hmm, maybe it's indeed better to do it entirely uniformly then. >>> >>> >>> Do we have agreement on the naming convention then? >>> >>> >>> - private headers -> <dir>__<filename>__H >>> - arch/arm/arm64/lib/something.h -> ARM__ARM64__LIB__SOMETHING_H >>> - arch/arm/arm32/lib/something.h -> ARM__ARM32__LIB__SOMETHING_H >>> - arch/x86/lib/something.h -> X86__LIB__SOMETHING_H >>> >>> - asm-generic headers -> ASM_GENERIC_<filename>_H >>> - include/asm-generic/percpu.h -> ASM_GENERIC_X86_PERCPU_H >>> >>> - arch/<architecture>/include/asm/<subdir>/<filename>.h -> ASM_<architecture>_<subdir>_<filename>_H >>> - arch/x86/include/asm/domain.h -> ASM_X86_DOMAIN_H >>> >>> - include/xen -> XEN_<filename>_H >>> - include/xen/percpu.h -> XEN_PERCPU_H >>> >>> >>> Or do you prefer the double underscore __ in all cases? >> >> It's not so much prefer, but a requirement if we want to be future proof. >> Even for ASM_GENERIC_* that'll be needed, as your outline above simply >> doesn't mention the (future) case of there being subdir-s there (see how >> Linux already has some). Imo the question doesn't even arise for XEN_*, >> as xen/ has subdir-s already. > > OK. So it becomes: > > - private headers -> <dir>__<filename>_H > - arch/arm/arm64/lib/something.h -> ARM__ARM64__LIB__SOMETHING_H > - arch/arm/arm32/lib/something.h -> ARM__ARM32__LIB__SOMETHING_H > - arch/x86/lib/something.h -> X86__LIB__SOMETHING_H > > - asm-generic headers -> ASM_GENERIC__<filename>_H > - include/asm-generic/percpu.h -> ASM_GENERIC__X86__PERCPU_H Nit: There's still a stray _X86_ in here.yes, good point. Alessandro, let us know if we are good to go ahead or if we are missing anything. I think we are good right now, I will provide the patch series v5 with all the fixes and inclusion guards renamings soon. > - arch/<architecture>/include/asm/<subdir>/<filename>.h -> ASM__<architecture>__<subdir>__<filename>_H > - arch/x86/include/asm/domain.h -> ASM__X86__DOMAIN_H > > - include/xen -> XEN__<filename>_H > - include/xen/percpu.h -> XEN__PERCPU_H > > If we have found agreement then Alessandro could send an update -- Alessandro Zucchelli, B.Sc. Software Engineer, BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |