On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:27:11AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote: > > > > On Nov 25, 2023, at 08:30, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:08:11AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: > >> Hi Kent, > >> > >> On 2023/11/24 05:24, Kent Overstreet wrote: > >>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:32:59AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: > >>>>> + void (*to_text)(struct seq_buf *, struct shrinker *); > >>>> > >>>> The "to_text" looks a little strange, how about naming it > >>>> "stat_objects"? > >>> > >>> The convention I've been using heavily in bcachefs is > >>> typename_to_text(), or type.to_text(), for debug reports. The > >> > >> OK. > >> > >>> consistency is nice. > >> > >> However, this is inconsistent with the name style of other > >> shrinker callbacks. Please use the "objects" suffix. As for > >> bcachefs's own callback function, you can use typename_to_text() > >> to ensure consistency. > > > > That would be inconsistent with introducing a convention to the wider > > kernel. > > > > I don not think .to_text is a good name. I really do not know what it means > when I first look at this name. I knew you want to report the objects of > shrinks, so why not use .report_objects or stat_objects proposed by Qi. > Although .to_text is only used by bcachefs now, shrinker is a general module > which is not only serving the bcachefs itself. I think it should be better > to use a more straightforward name. No, .report_objects or .stat_objects would be wrong; this isn't generating a report on the objects owned by the shrinker, it's just a report on the statistics of the shrinker itself. That's why the convention is typename_to_text() - generate a text representation of an object of that type.
