On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 08:10:05AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > At first I wondered "iomi? Strange name, why is this one-off name > used?" and then I realised it's because this function also takes an > struct iov_iter named "iter". > > That's going to cause confusion in the long run - iov_iter and > iomap_iter both being generally named "iter", and then one or the > other randomly changing when both are used in the same function. > > Would it be better to avoid any possible confusion simply by using > "iomi" for all iomap_iter variables throughout the patchset from the > start? That way nobody is going to confuse iov_iter with iomap_iter > iteration variables and code that uses both types will naturally > have different, well known names... Hmm. iomi comes from the original patch from willy and I kinda hate it. But given that we have this clash here (and in the direct I/O code) I kept using it. Does anyone have any strong opinions here?
