On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 10:26:33PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 03:48:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > We're about to make this logic do a bit more, so convert the macro to a > > static inline function for better typechecking and fewer shouty macros. > > No functional changes here. > > No arguments about the inline which is always a good idea. But is > there much of a point in changing the naming? The old one nicely > sticks out just like XFS_I and VFS_I have been inline functions for > a long time. I personally am not that bothered by shouty function names, but Dave has asked for shout-reduction in the past, so every time I convert something I also change the case. AFAIK it /is/ sort of a C custom that macros get loud names and functions do not so that you ALWAYS KNOW, erm, when you're dealing with a macro that could rain bad coding conventions down on your head. --D
