Re: [PATCH v6 2/8] vpci: Refactor REGISTER_VPCI_INIT

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 24.06.2025 10:26, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
> On 2025/6/24 16:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 24.06.2025 10:12, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>>> On 2025/6/20 14:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 19.06.2025 08:14, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>>>>> On 2025/6/18 22:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 12.06.2025 11:29, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>>>>>>> +} vpci_capability_t;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you have it here, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -29,9 +30,22 @@ typedef int vpci_register_init_t(struct pci_dev 
>>>>>>> *dev);
>>>>>>>   */
>>>>>>>  #define VPCI_MAX_VIRT_DEV       (PCI_SLOT(~0) + 1)
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> -#define REGISTER_VPCI_INIT(x, p)                \
>>>>>>> -  static vpci_register_init_t *const x##_entry  \
>>>>>>> -               __used_section(".data.vpci." p) = (x)
>>>>>>> +#define REGISTER_VPCI_CAPABILITY(cap, finit, fclean, ext) \
>>>>>>> +    static const vpci_capability_t finit##_t = { \
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... _t suffixes generally designate types. I don't think we should abuse
>>>>>> that suffix for an identifier of a variable.
>>>>> What do you think I should change to?
>>>>
>>>> Well, if you take my other advice, this question won't need answering, as
>>>> then you only need the ..._entry one.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, noticing only now - why is it finit that's used to derive the 
>>>> identifier?
>>>> With that, it could as well be fclean (leaving aside the fact that that's
>>>> optional). Imo the name would better be derived from cap, and it would 
>>>> better
>>>> also reflect the purpose of the variable.
>>> I considered this.
>>> I think it is easier to use finit, and finit contains the cap type, and the 
>>> main purpose of this struct is to initialize the cap.
>>
>> Yet identifier names should make sense for the object they name.
> OK. What's your suggestion about naming the entry?

cap##_init or _##cap##_init for example.

Jan