Hello Shreyansh, On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:47:29 +0000 Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote:
> Sorry, didn't notice this email earlier... > Comments inline > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jan Viktorin [mailto:viktorin at rehivetech.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:26 PM > > To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com>; Thomas > > Monjalon > > <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>; Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at > > intel.com>; > > Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com>; jianbo.liu at linaro.org; > > jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com; Keith Wiles <keith.wiles at intel.com>; > > Stephen > > Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/28] eal: extract function > > eal_parse_sysfs_valuef > > > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 04:30:57 +0000 > > Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > I almost skipped the '..f' in the name and wondered how two functions > > > > > > > > > having same name exist :D > > > > > > > > I agree that a better name would be nice here. This convention was > > > > based > > on > > > > the libc naming > > > > (fopen, fclose) but the "f" letter could not be at the beginning. > > > > > > > > What about one of those? > > > > > > > > * eal_parse_sysfs_fd_value > > > > * eal_parse_sysfs_file_value > > > > > > I don't have any better idea than above. > > > > > > Though, I still feel that 'eal_parse_sysfs_value -> > > eal_parse_sysfs_file_value' would be slightly asymmetrical - but again, this > > is highly subjective argument. > > > > I don't see any asymmetry here. The functions equal, just the new one > > accepts > > a file pointer instead of a path > > and we don't have function name overloading in C. > > Asymmetrical because cascading function names maybe additive for easy > reading/recall. > > 'eal_parse_sysfs_value ==> eal_parse_sysfs_value_<XX> ==> > eal_parse_sysfs_value_<XX>_<YY>' > > Obviously, this is not a rule - it just makes reading and recalling of > cascade easier. > As for: > > eal_parse_sysfs_value => eal_parse_sysfs_file_value > > inserts an identifier between a name, making it (slightly) difficult to > correlate. > > Again, as I mentioned earlier, this is subjective argument and matter of > (personal!) choice. > > > > > > > > > Or, eal_parse_sysfs_value -> eal_parse_sysfs_value_read() may be... > > > > I think, I'll go with eal_parse_sysfs_file_value for v2. Ideally, it should > > be > > eal_parse_sysfs_path_value and eal_parse_sysfs_file_value. Thus, this looks > > like > > a good way. > > > > > > > > But, eal_parse_sysfs_file_value is still preferred than > > eal_parse_sysfs_fd_value, for me. > > > > Agree. > > > [...] I've finally returned to your idea to name it eal_parse_sysfs_value_read. Thanks. Jan > > - > Shreyansh -- Jan Viktorin E-mail: Viktorin at RehiveTech.com System Architect Web: www.RehiveTech.com RehiveTech Brno, Czech Republic