Thanks everyone for replying, below is the summary of earlier emails.
1) Ian wrote:
| I think the best way to do this is once Arnaldo agrees and then
| prepare a big patch to do this. If we don't get Arnaldo's buy in then
| it will be hell to maintain the patch set.
Fully agree - Arnaldo is the maintainer and as such it is up to him to decide
on such things
affecting global consistency. If there is a new naming scheme which finds his
approval, I am
more than happy to update the entire test tree, but if not I wouldn't like to
change
the patches: these should reflect the existing DCCP style/conventions.
2) All agreed that the naming scheme could be changed.
3) There are the following suggestions:
* Arnaldo: "->c2tx_"
* Leandro: "tx->c4"
If we combine these suggestions, considering that for the CCID sockets this
will be likely
`hcrx' for RX sockets and `hctx' for TX sockets (like referring to struct
sk_buff as skb),
then Leandro's scheme is nice and small:
* hcrx->c3_last_counter
* hcrx->c4_last_counter
* hctx->c3_last_win_count
* hctx->c4_no_feedback_timer
In conclusion, what about the following naming scheme:?
* hctx->c"N"_FIELDNAME /* N = CCID number, 0..255 */
* hcrx->c"N"_FIELDNAME
* avr->avr_FIELDNAME /* r for record ? */
* av->av_FIELDNAME /* or drop the `av/avr' ? */
The actual patch will probably cost less work than making this scheme
consistent.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
