[libvirt] [PATCH 2/3] conf: Clean up nodedev code

[Michal Privoznik]

On 03/02/2017 10:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:04:24AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> On 03/02/2017 09:58 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 19:27:15 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
>>>> Alter the static functions from virNodeDev* to just nodeDev* as a visual
>>>> cue to determine which are local or not when reading code.
>>>>
>>>> Cleanup spacing between functions, function defs, etc. to match more modern
>>>> techniques used in libvirt
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan at redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  src/conf/node_device_conf.c | 476 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>>  src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c | 128 ++++++------
>>>>  2 files changed, 322 insertions(+), 282 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c b/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
>>>> index bc36527..09e815a 100644
>>>> --- a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
>>>> +++ b/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
>>>> @@ -72,9 +72,9 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virNodeDevDRM, VIR_NODE_DEV_DRM_LAST,
>>>>                "render")
>>>>  
>>>>  static int
>>>> -virNodeDevCapsDefParseString(const char *xpath,
>>>> -                             xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt,
>>>> -                             char **string)
>>>> +nodeDevCapsDefParseString(const char *xpath,
>>>> +                          xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt,
>>>> +                          char **string)
>>>
>>> Please don't remove the vir prefix. The coding style tries to converge
>>> to having them everywhere.
>>>
>>
>> Why? If a function is static, we can be sure it's not called from
>> outside of the file. Moreover, I'd direct your attention to recent
>> commit of f557b3351e0b6d for instance. In fact whole qemu driver serves
>> as a great example: it's "static int qemuDomain*()" not "static vir
>> virQEMUDomain*()".
>>
>> In fact, I'd suggest the opposite rule - use "vir" prefix only if
>> function is shared between modules. For instance  virFileCopyACLs should
>> have the vir prefix because it's exported. virFileRewriteStrHelper
>> should not have the prefix because it's static.
>> The advantage of this approach is that one can immediately tell just
>> from the name if the function is exported or not.
> 
> No, this is a bad rule because it causes us to rename code when we
> inevitably make static functions non-static. We want a naming rule
> that is standardized & stable long term. Convering to use 'vir'
> prefix everywhere gives us that.

I fail to see why would renaming be a problem. Going from static to
non-static would require to change all the callers in just one file
(which is not going to have much callers anyway). Going the opposite
direction - well, there are no callers in other files anyway. If there
were we couldn't make the funtion static.

But okay, my phrasing was probably not the best. I wouldn't make it a
rule that everybody has to follow. It's just that it makes sense to me
to have static functions without vir- prefix.

Michal