xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: pass mp to XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_*

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: pass mp to XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_*
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 08:09:26 -0500
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150208213502.GA4251@dastard>
References: <54D53E8C.8070207@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150208213502.GA4251@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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?

Brian

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>