Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:35:16 +0600 (ALMT) From: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> To: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CFR: Sequential mbuf read/write extensions Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102071530140.7952-100000@lion.butya.kz> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0102070927410.6318-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Harti Brandt wrote: > But, I would recommend to stick with the ususal naming of size dependend > things, by appending a numeric suffix. Something like: > > int mb_get8(struct mbdata *mbp, u_int8_t *x); > int mb_get16(struct mbdata *mbp, u_int16_t *x); > int mb_get16le(struct mbdata *mbp, u_int16_t *x); > int mb_get16be(struct mbdata *mbp, u_int16_t *x); > int mb_get32(struct mbdata *mbp, u_int32_t *x); > ... > > Using 'word' and 'doubleword' is rather confusing (when speeking of words > I would think of 32 bit nowadays). Well, it depends. For me 'word', 'dword' and 'qword' are clear from the good old 8bit days :) If numbers in the function names looks good I can live with it. Opinions ? -- Boris Popov http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0102071530140.7952-100000>