On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:48:30PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > Not against your suggestion here. > But in kernel I do see a preference towards object followed by a verb. > At least in vfs I see functions like inode_lock()/unlock(). > > Plus I would not deny that this naming is also inspired from > xfs_ilock()/iunlock API names. I see those names as being "classical Unix" heritage (eh, maybe SysV). > hmm, it was increasing the name of the macro if I do it that way. > But that's ok. Is below macro name better? > > #define EXT4_INODE_IOLOCK_EXCL (1 << 0) > #define EXT4_INODE_IOLOCK_SHARED (1 << 1) In particular, Linux tends to prefer read/write instead of shared/exclusive terminology. rwlocks, rwsems, rcu_read_lock, seqlocks. shared/exclusive is used by file locks. And XFS ;-) I agree with Jan; just leave them opencoded. Probably worth adding inode_lock_downgrade() to fs.h instead of accessing i_rwsem directly.
