Re: [PATCH 3/3] docs/doxygen: doxygen documentation for grant_table.h

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.04.2021 10:42, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > Just to be sure that we are in the same page, are you suggesting to modify 
> > the name
> > In this way?
> > 
> > struct gnttab_cache_flush {
> > -    union {
> > +    union xen_gnttab_cache_flush_a {
> >         uint64_t dev_bus_addr;
> >         grant_ref_t ref;
> >     } a;
> > 
> > Following this kind of pattern: xen_<upper struct name>_<member name> ?
> 
> While in general I would be fine with this scheme, for field names like
> "a" or "u" it doesn't fit well imo.

"a" is a bad name anyway, even for the member. We can take the
opportunity to find a better name. Almost anything would be better than
"a". Maybe "refaddr"?


> I'm also unconvinced this would be
> scalable to the case where there's further struct/union nesting.

How many of these instances of multilevel nesting do we have? Luca might
know. Probably not many? They could be special-cased.