Messages in this thread | | | From | Marco Elver <> | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2023 20:08:10 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] list_debug: Introduce inline wrappers for debug checks |
| |
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 19:59, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 13:57:57 -0400 > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:49:48 +0200 > > Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > I've been guilty of this madness myself, but I have learned the errors of > > > > my ways, and have been avoiding doing so in any new code I write. > > > > > > That's fair. We can call them __list_*_valid() (inline), and > > > __list_*_valid_or_report() ? > > > > __list_*_valid_check() ?
Well, in patch 3/3, the inline function will also do a reduced set of checking, so "valid_check" is also misleading because both will do checks.
The key distinguishing thing between the inline and non-inline version is that the non-inline version will check more things, and also produce reports.
So I can see
1. __list_*_valid_or_report() 2. __list_*_full_valid()
To be appropriate. Preference?
> I have to admit, I think the main reason kernel developers default to using > these useless underscores is because kernel developers are notoriously > lousy at naming. ;-)
Heh, naming is hard. ;-)
| |