On Tue 21-04-15 11:02:29, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:51:19AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > I can easily understand what "initializing writeback structure" means but > > "exiting writeback structure" doesn't really make sense to me. OTOH > > "destroying writeback structure" does make sense to me. That's the only > > reason. > > We have enough cases where "exit" is used that way starting with > module_exit() and all the accompanying __exit annotations and there > are quite a few others. I think it's enough to establish "exit" as > the counterpart of "init" but I do agree that it felt a bit alien to > me at the beginning too. > > In general, I've been sticking with create/destroy if the object > itself is being created or destroyed and init/exit if the object > itself stays put across init/exit which is the case here. This isn't > quite universal but I think there exists enough of a pattern to make > it worthwhile to stick to it. As such, I'd like to stick to the > current names if it isn't a big deal. It's not a big deal, so feel free to keep your naming. It's not a function I'd stare at every day ;) Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>