Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] iavf: refactor VLAN filter states

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 17:59:08 -0700

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:50:55 -0600 Ahmed Zaki wrote:
> On 2023-04-05 18:15, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue,  4 Apr 2023 10:25:21 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote:  
> >> +	__IAVF_VLAN_INVALID,
> >> +	__IAVF_VLAN_ADD,	/* filter needs to be added */
> >> +	__IAVF_VLAN_IS_NEW,	/* filter is new, wait for PF answer */
> >> +	__IAVF_VLAN_ACTIVE,	/* filter is accepted by PF */
> >> +	__IAVF_VLAN_REMOVE,	/* filter needs to be removed */  
> > Why the leading underscores?  
> 
> Just following the convention. iavf_tc_state_t and 
> iavf_cloud_filter_state_t have these underscores. Same for iavf_state_t.

What is the convention, tho?  Differently put what is the thing
that would be defined with the same names but without the underscores?

My intuition is that we prefix bit numbers with __, 
then the mask (1 << __BIT_NO) does not have a prefix.

But these are not used as bits anywhere, in fact you're going away 
from bits...