[libvirt] [PATCH v2 00/14] Use macros for more common virsh command options

Andrea Bolognani abologna at redhat.com
Thu Jan 7 15:55:35 UTC 2016


On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 08:51 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> 
> > 3) I haven't looked at how is meshes with consistency of other macro
> > names in virsh*, but it would make more sense to me if these were named
>> >    VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_BLAH
>> > instead of
>> >    VIRSH_BLAH_OPT_COMMON
>> > It reads better, and sticks the difference out at the end where it is
> > more easily separated from the "common common" part.
> 
> I was following Peter's suggested naming:
> 
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-December/msg00675.html
> 
> but I have no favorite... If others chime in and agree, then I'm fine
> with switching.

I think Peter was merely suggesting that the macros should have
a suitable prefix.

VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_FOO makes the most sense to me, so +1 to Laine's
proposal. On the other hand, we already have some
VSH_POOL_*_OPT_COMMON in master, so changing the naming now would
clash with what's already been committed.

On the *other* other hand, however, I think the VSH_ prefix is not
appropriate for those macros, since they are virsh specific and as
such should be using the VIRSH_ prefix, so the best course of action
IMHO would be to first fix what's already in master to use the
VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_ prefix and then follow up with this series,
making sure to adhere to the same naming convention.

This is prime bikeshedding material, isn't it? :)

Cheers.

-- 
Andrea Bolognani
Software Engineer - Virtualization Team




More information about the libvir-list mailing list