On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:06 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I struggle with the fcheck name as I have not seen or at least not
> registed on the the user that just checks to see if the result is NULL.
> So the name fcheck never made a bit of sense to me.
Yeah, that name is not great. I just don't want to make things even worse.
> I will see if I can come up with some good descriptive comments around
> these functions. Along with describing what these things are doing I am
> thinking maybe I should put "_rcu" in their names and have a debug check
> that verifies "_rcu" is held.
Yeah, something along the lines of "rcu_lookup_fd_task(tsk,fd)" would
be a *lot* more descriptive than fcheck_task().
And I think "fnext_task()" could be "rcu_lookup_next_fd_task(tsk,fd)".
Yes, those are much longer names, but it's not like you end up typing
them all that often, and I think being descriptive would be worth it.
And "fcheck()" and "fcheck_files()" would be good to rename too along
the same lines.
Something like "rcu_lookup_fd()" and "rcu_lookup_fd_files()" respectively?
I'm obviously trying to go for a "rcu_lookup_fd*()" kind of pattern,
and I'm not married to _that_ particular pattern but I think it would
be better than what we have now.
Linus
