On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 14:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010 22:14:32 +0100 > Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 01:23:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > A more conventional and superior naming scheme is > > > subsystemid_specific_function_identifier(). eg, bio_add_page() instead > > > of add_page_to_bio(). > > > > > > So these want to be sb_mark_dirty(), etc. > > > > > > Being very old code written by very yound people, the VFS kinda ignores > > > that convention, but it doesn't hurt to use it for new code. > > > > > > Feel free to ignore me if that's too much of a PITA ;) > > > > The real issue is that it's almost certainly an overdesign. Let's > > get rid of the bogus uses first and figure out what's happening in > > what remains, OK? > > That would be good. Yes, I just mechanically introduced the wrappers to all FS-es. But as per Al's request, I am going to try looking at how FSwe use it and validate the usage. It'll take some time as this stuff is my background task. Will see. > > I have no problems with doing such wrappers, but if we touch every > > place using ->s_dirt anyway, let's at least take a good look at them. > > When adding wrappers we should also rename ->s_dirt (say, to __s_dirt) > to catch out any unconverted code. Right, I did this in the following patch: [PATCHv4 16/17] VFS: rename s_dirt to s_dirty I thought that adding a leading '_' is not very neat, so added 'y' at the end. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
