On 26.10.2023 03:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 25.10.2023 03:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> And if we can find a clear general comment about the usage of leading >>> underscores in Xen I am happy to add it too (e.g. header guards), but >>> from MISRA point of view the above is sufficient. >> >> But what we need isn't a description of the status quo, but one of >> what state we want to (slowly) move to. The status quo anyway is >> "no pattern, as in the past hardly anyone cared". > > I guess you are suggesting something more like the following, but please > feel free to suggest your favorite wording (it might be easier for me to > understand what you mean if you provide a short example). > > --- > All identifiers starting with an underscore are reserved and should not > be used.
Again, no. Identifiers starting with an underscore followed by another underscore or an upper-case letter are reserved. Other identifiers are dedicated for a particular purpose, and are fine to use for (at least) that purpose. > Today Xen uses many, such as header guards and bitwise > manipulation functions. Upon analysis it turns out Xen identifiers do > not clash with the identifiers used by modern GCC, but that is not a > guarantee that there won't be a naming clash in the future or with > another compiler. For these reasons we discourage the introduction of > new reserved identifiers in Xen, and we see it as positive the reduction > of reserved identifiers. At the same time, certain identifiers starting > with an underscore are also commonly used in Linux (e.g. __set_bit) and > we don't think it would be an improvement to rename them. Everything else reads okay-ish to me. Jan
