On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 06:17:35PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. In fs/inode.c and a few other places we have the *_rcu suffix pattern already so maybe: fcheck() -> fd_file_rcu() or lookup_fd_rcu() fcheck_files() -> fd_files_rcu() or lookup_fd_files_rcu() fnext_task() -> fd_file_from_task_rcu() or lookup_next_fd_from_task_rcu() rather than as prefix or sm. Christian
