[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: flesh out our naming conventions.

From: Claudio Fontana
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: flesh out our naming conventions.
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 15:47:47 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

On 8/6/20 1:40 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Mention a few of the more common naming conventions we follow in the
> code base including common variable names and function prefix and
> suffix examples.
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> ---
>  CODING_STYLE.rst | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/CODING_STYLE.rst b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> index 427699e0e42..17cb42ba761 100644
> --- a/CODING_STYLE.rst
> +++ b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> @@ -109,9 +109,32 @@ names are lower_case_with_underscores_ending_with_a_t, 
> like the POSIX
>  uint64_t and family.  Note that this last convention contradicts POSIX
>  and is therefore likely to be changed.
> +Variable Naming Conventions
> +---------------------------
> +
> +A number of common short naming conventions exist for variables that use
> +common QEMU types. For example when dealing with the architecture
> +independent CPUState this is often in a ``cs`` pointer variable
> +whereas the concrete CPUArchState us usually held in a pointer called
> +``env``.
> +
> +Likewise in device emulation code the common DeviceState is usually
> +called ``dev`` with the actual state structure often the very terse
> +``s`` or maybe ``foodev``.
> +
> +Function Naming Conventions
> +---------------------------
> +
>  When wrapping standard library functions, use the prefix ``qemu_`` to alert
>  readers that they are seeing a wrapped version; otherwise avoid this prefix.
> +Functions that are expected to be called with some sort of lock held
> +usually have the suffix ``_locked``.
> +
> +Public functions (i.e. declared in public headers) tend to be prefixes
> +with the subsystem or file they came from. For example ``tlb_`` for
> +functions from ``cputlb.c`` or ``cpu_`` for functions from cpus.c.

Hi Alex,

agree with the sentiment, for cpus.c I would suggest cpus_ though.

There are otherwise so many cpu_ functions and cpu.c modules.. using cpus_ 
would help a lot to understand that it is part of softmmu/cpus.c


Also cpus.c contains a lot of qemu_ that is not used to wrap standard library 

After the current cpus refactoring, I could take care of improving the naming 
conventions in cpus.c



> +
>  Block structure
>  ===============

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]