xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: Propagate dentry down to inode_change_ok()

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: Propagate dentry down to inode_change_ok()
From: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 11:32:46 +0200
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx>, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160809082756.GA11657@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1470223689-17783-1-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <1470223689-17783-2-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <20160809082756.GA11657@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
On Tue 09-08-16 01:27:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +static int
> > +xfs_vn_change_ok(
> > +   struct dentry   *dentry,
> > +   struct iattr    *iattr)
> 
> Please don't use the _vn prefix for something that's not an
> actual inode operation (and we should do a mess rename to 
> _iop one day as well.)
> 
> > +int
> > +xfs_vn_setattr_nonsize(
> > +   struct dentry           *dentry,
> > +   struct iattr            *iattr)
> 
> Same here.

So do you suggest xfs_iop_change_ok and xfs_iop_setattr_nonsize? I don't
really care, I just remember Dave had some ideas how names should be
consistent and this naming was his idea...

                                                                Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR

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