On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 8:16 PM Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Christoph, > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 09:39:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 06:50:48PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > > Please use an erofs_ prefix for all your functions. > > > > > > It is already a static function, I have no idea what is wrong here. > > > > Which part of all wasn't clear? Have you looked at the prefixes for > > most functions in the various other big filesystems? > > I will add erofs prefix to free_inode as you said. > > At least, all non-prefix functions in erofs are all static functions, > it won't pollute namespace... I will add "erofs_" to other meaningful > callbacks...And as you can see... > > cifs/cifsfs.c > 1303:cifs_init_inodecache(void) > 1509: rc = cifs_init_inodecache(); > > hpfs/super.c > 254:static int init_inodecache(void) > 771: int err = init_inodecache(); > > minix/inode.c > 84:static int __init init_inodecache(void) > 665: int err = init_inodecache(); > Hi Gao, "They did it first" is never a good reply for code review comments. Nobody cares if you copy&paste code with init_inodecache(). I understand why you thought static function names do not pollute the (linker) namespace, but they do pollute the global namespace. free_inode() as a local function name is one of the worst examples for VFS namespace pollution. VFS code uses function names like those a lot in the global namespace, e.g.: clear_inode(),new_inode(). For example from recent history of namespace collision caused by your line of thinking, see: e6fd2093a85d md: namespace private helper names Besides, you really have nothing to loose from prefixing everything with erofs_, do you? It's better for review, for debugging... Thanks, Amir. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
