Re: [Qemu-devel] Issues around TYPE_INTERFACE

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 29/03/19 19:11, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>> Yet they're used for less than half of the interface names:
>>>>>
>>>>>     TYPE_ISADMA
>>>>>     TYPE_MEMORY_DEVICE
>>>>>     TYPE_NMI

Could be renamed to TYPE_NMI_MONITOR_HANDLER.

>>>>>     TYPE_NVRAM
>>>>>     TYPE_PPC_VIRTUAL_HYPERVISOR
>>>>>     TYPE_STREAM_SLAVE
>>>>>     TYPE_USER_CREATABLE
>>>>>     TYPE_XICS_FABRIC
>>>>>     TYPE_XIVE_NOTIFIER
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we agree on one naming convention, and enforce it?
>>
>> I tend to like interface names that express an ability ("foo-er",
>> "foo-able").  Anything else should use a *_IF or *_IFACE suffix.
> 
> I like the _IFACE suffix.
> 
> Does eliding the _IFACE suffix for names ending with ER or ABLE improve
> readability?
> 
> "foo-er" interface types:
> 
>     INTERFACE_RDMA_PROVIDER
>     TYPE_FW_PATH_PROVIDER
>     TYPE_HOTPLUG_HANDLER
>     TYPE_INTERRUPT_STATS_PROVIDER
>     TYPE_XIVE_NOTIFIER
> 
> "foo-er" non-interface types:

Leaving out those where grammar threw a curve ball, or things that
aren't QOM types, only the following remain (some of which could be
debated further):

>     TYPE_EXYNOS4210_COMBINER
>     TYPE_FILTER_REWRITER
>     TYPE_GENERIC_LOADER
>     TYPE_PC_SPEAKER
>     TYPE_PR_MANAGER
>     TYPE_PR_MANAGER_HELPER
>     TYPE_QIO_DNS_RESOLVER
>     TYPE_QIO_NET_LISTENER
>     TYPE_XIVE_ROUTER
> 
> "foo-able" interface types:
> 
>     TYPE_USER_CREATABLE
> 
> "foo-able" non-interface types:
> 
>     TYPE_SPAPR_TCE_TABLE

Same here, doesn't really count.

Paolo