On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:25:08PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

quoted text
> > > > i2c-foo.c is consistently used for i2c bus driver themselves so far.
> > > > It's somewhat confusing to see you name platform code that way. It's
> > > > also redundant, given that the file lives in the swarm platform
> > > > directory. May I suggest naming this file just
> > > > arch/mips/sibyte/swarm/i2c.c? Other architectures (cris, arm) are doing
> > > > this already.

quoted text
>  I can do that and I have considered it while preparing the change.  What
> convinced me not to use a name that is already present elsewhere in the
> tree is the confusion that it sometimes causes.  For example during a
> debugging session GDB only reports the file name and not the leading
> pathname (and some people do run GDB over the kernel).  Of course the
> actual file can still be chased with some `find' and `grep' scriptery, but
> why to create a problem in the first place?
> 
>  I consider repeated file names throughout a tree of a single program a 
> namespace pollution similar to one with repeated static symbol names.  
> While syntactically valid and working, it asks for unnecessary confusion.
> 
>  This is my point of view, but I can see others may not necessarily follow
> it.  I am fine with changing the name to i2c.c as it is unlikely I will
> run GDB over it. ;-)

I've started using unique prefixes such as ip22- or ip27- a while ago.
And why not following that example with arch/mips/sibyte/swarm/swarm-i2c.c
or similar?

  Ralf
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/