On Friday 29 August 2008 10:47, Jon Povey wrote: > > From: Lloyd Sargent > I doubt you have had many mainline patches approved with this kind of > huge camelcase variable name. It may be acceptable in some kinds of > programming but not kernel C.
All which matters not a whit to the final compiled code. I have been fortunate to write code for various kernels (Linux is only the latest) and yes, I do use "camelcase" variable names. Because the final compiled code doesn't care. > The only information we lose is that they are *network* buffers and that > they are *objects*. Yes, we lose information that, as you argue later, can be gleaned from context. This is the "assumption model" - that everyone who will be looking at this code has the time (and money) to spend figuring out what the code does with the variable to go "aha, THAT'S what they mean". Some people may make the wrong assumption. Some may not have time to make the right one. I believe it is a mistake to remove documentation from code that works. Nor are you in a position to argue how clear it would be with the addition of your patch, as you have seen both unpatched and patched versions. The phrase "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" applies quite well to this instance. Cheers, Lloyd _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
