On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:40:47PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > So one thing we could do is _xfs_scratch_repair and _xfs_test_repair? Hmm, or maybe _xfs_repair_scratch and _xfs_repair_test; since at least for English speakers verb-object is probably more natural. But if you or Darrick have a strong preference I'm don't care that much. > Then all existing _scratch_xfs_repair calls need a rename, but I'm fine > with the rename. > > > > > The other thing is how much of the cleanup in common/xfs should be > > segregated into a separate commit (and I'm not sure how competent I'm > > going to be ate doing that cleanup, but I'm willing to give it a go). > > I think we can do minimal cleanup in this patch (like the rename of > _scratch_xfs_repair to _xfs_scratch_repair) and do other cleanups in > separate commits (if there's still any). If you don't mind I'll do the renames as a separate commit since that's much easier to verify/review. Cheers, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
