On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 5:24 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 08:48:16PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > > > Since we're at the nitpicking, I don't find those names very useful, > > > either. How about the following instead? > > > > > > iomap_ifs_alloc -> iomap_folio_state_alloc > > > iomap_ifs_free -> iomap_folio_state_free > > > iomap_ifs_calc_range -> iomap_folio_state_calc_range > > > > First of all I think we need to get used to the name "ifs" like how we > > were using "iop" earlier. ifs == iomap_folio_state... > > > > > > > > iomap_ifs_is_fully_uptodate -> iomap_folio_is_fully_uptodate > > > iomap_ifs_is_block_uptodate -> iomap_block_is_uptodate > > > iomap_ifs_is_block_dirty -> iomap_block_is_dirty > > > > > > > ...if you then look above functions with _ifs_ == _iomap_folio_state_ > > naming. It will make more sense. > > Well, it doesn't because it's iomap_iomap_folio_state_is_fully_uptodate. Exactly. > I don't think there's any need to namespace this so fully. > ifs_is_fully_uptodate() is just fine for a static function, IMO. I'd be perfectly happy with that kind of naming scheme as well. Thanks, Andreas
