On 2/9/15 7:09 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 08:35:02AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:22:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> These 2 patches provide information about which filesystem >>> hit the error... >> >> If we are going to touch every one of these macros, then can we >> rename them to something a little shorter like XFS_CORRUPT_GOTO() >> and XFS_CORRUPT_RETURN() at the same time? That will make the code a >> little less eye-bleedy where there are lots of these statements, >> and make formatting of complex checks a bit easier, too... >> > > XFS_CORRUPT_DOSOMETHING() jumps out to me as indicate corruption if the > logic statement evaluates as true rather than false. The latter (e.g., > assert-like logic) is how they work today, so that could be a bit > confusing to somebody who isn't already familiar with how these macros > work. > > Unfortunately, nothing shorter than the current naming immediately comes > to mind... :/ We could kill the XFS_ prefix I suppose or even invert the > logic of the calls, but that's certainly a more significant change. > Thoughts? Right, so today it's XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN(thing_that_should_be_true) and I agree, that's always felt a bit odd. Dave suggests XFS_CORRUPT_RETURN(thing_that_should_be_true) I guess the "WANT" was supposed to imply that the argument is the test that we "want" to be true? :) I'm not super excited about inverting every test, but we could ... XFS_CORRUPT_RETURN_IF_NOT(test) would be explicit, at least. Or XFS_CORRUPT_RETURN_UNLESS(test). I can't think of a nice short name that conveys more meaning, either, but I'm not really sure that it's critical to change it at this point. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
