On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> What do you guys think of changing struct ceph_mount_t to struct >>> ceph_mount_info_t? >>> >> I personally don't like sticking a _t prefix to a struct. It's either >> a typedef or a struct. >> > Ahrm.. *postfix* >
I'm ok with removing the _t stuff from our library APIs. But it we'd have to bump up the revision numbers on everything :P I'm just going to leave this here: http://ceph.newdream.net/git/?p=ceph-client.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/CodingStyle;h=8bb37237ebd25b19759cc47874c63155406ea28f;hb=HEAD > Chapter 5: Typedefs > > Please don't use things like "vps_t". > > It's a _mistake_ to use typedef for structures and pointers. When you see a > > vps_t a; > > in the source, what does it mean? > > In contrast, if it says > > struct virtual_container *a; > > you can actually tell what "a" is. > > Lots of people think that typedefs "help readability". Not so. They are > useful only for: > [...] > I'll come back once the flamewar has settled down :) Colin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
