On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 09:56:20AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > The problem ultimately stems from the fact that this function is paired > with usb_device_probe(), hence the original name usb_device_remove(). Of > course, usb_device_probe() wasn't such a good name either. Maybe the two > functions should both be renamed to > > usb_probe_interface() and usb_unbind_interface().
Yeah, those names are quite old, and what they do is pretty far removed from what they used to do (in 2.4). > Like Oliver, I don't think dropping the "usb_" prefix is a good idea. I > do that pretty much only for static functions. Even though these are > restricted to use by the core, they aren't static. Because the hub driver calls them, right? If so, then yes, keep the prefix. > P.S.: While we're on the subject of renaming functions, the most egregious > example I know of in usbcore is usb_connect(). This function does nothing > more than select a new, unused USB address. It ought to be called > usb_choose_address(), parallel to usb_set_address(). That wouldn't be a > big change, since the function is called in only one place. Shall I fold > that into the patch as well? How about a separate one for that, and yes, I agree that this is quite a bad name, I think in 2.2 it does more than just that :) thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
