Re: [PATCH vRFC 3/8] treewide: rename firmware_request_platform()

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 04:22:09PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/24/2024 11:06 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:42:35AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 04:33:40PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 07:15:45AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 07:21:31AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:30:28PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > > > > > Rename firmware_request_platform() to request_firmware_platform()
> > > > > > > to be more concrete and align with the name of other request
> > > > > > > firmware family functions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry, but no, it should be "noun_verb" for public functions.
> > > > > 
> > > > > News to me, do we have this documented somewhere?
> > > > 
> > > > Not really, but searching makes it nicer.
> > > > 
> > > > And yes, I violated this in the past in places, and have regretted it...
> > > 
> > > Care to share a few examples of regret?
> > 
> > 	get_device()
> > 	put_device()
> > 	kill_device()
> > 
> > vs. a saner:
> > 	kobject_get()
> > 	kobject_put()
> > 	kobject_del()
> > 
> > Learn from the mistakes of my youth please :)
> 
> Thanks for the history.,
> In that case, should we fix this verb_noun cases ?
> 
> request_firmware()
> request_firmware_into_buf()
> request_firmware_nowarn()
> request_firmware_direct()
> request_firmware_cache()
> request_partial_firmware_into_buf()
> release_firmware()

That would provide consistency, right?

thanks,

greg k-h