From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=dqDw=W3=lists.ozlabs.org=linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D979AC3A59F
	for <linux-erofs@archiver.kernel.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 06:49:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6530D2377B
	for <linux-erofs@archiver.kernel.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 06:49:56 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6530D2377B
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46L6R64fVpzDr86
	for <linux-erofs@archiver.kernel.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:49:54 +1000 (AEST)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com
 (client-ip=45.249.212.188; helo=huawei.com;
 envelope-from=gaoxiang25@huawei.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46L6R15WVKzDqlw
 for <linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:49:48 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53])
 by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 9D52E350C09520126B0B;
 Sat, 31 Aug 2019 14:49:43 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) by
 DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.439.0; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 14:49:43 +0800
Received: from architecture4 (10.140.130.215) by
 dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server
 (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id
 15.1.1591.10; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 14:49:42 +0800
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 14:48:53 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/24] erofs: add super block operations
Message-ID: <20190831064853.GA162401@architecture4>
References: <20190802125347.166018-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
 <20190802125347.166018-4-gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
 <20190829101545.GC20598@infradead.org>
 <20190829105048.GB64893@architecture4>
 <20190830163910.GB29603@infradead.org>
 <20190830171510.GC107220@architecture4>
 <CAOQ4uxichLUsPyg5Fqg-pSL85oqoDFcQHZbzdrkXX_-kK=CjDQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxichLUsPyg5Fqg-pSL85oqoDFcQHZbzdrkXX_-kK=CjDQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-Originating-IP: [10.140.130.215]
X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.103) To
 dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108)
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system <linux-erofs.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linux-erofs>,
 <mailto:linux-erofs-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-erofs-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linux-erofs>,
 <mailto:linux-erofs-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
 linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
 "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
 Miao Xie <miaoxie@huawei.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
 Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linux-erofs"
 <linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 09:34:44AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 8:16 PM Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Christoph,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 09:39:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 06:50:48PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > > > Please use an erofs_ prefix for all your functions.
> > > >
> > > > It is already a static function, I have no idea what is wrong here.
> > >
> > > Which part of all wasn't clear?  Have you looked at the prefixes for
> > > most functions in the various other big filesystems?
> >
> > I will add erofs prefix to free_inode as you said.
> >
> > At least, all non-prefix functions in erofs are all static functions,
> > it won't pollute namespace... I will add "erofs_" to other meaningful
> > callbacks...And as you can see...
> >
> > cifs/cifsfs.c
> > 1303:cifs_init_inodecache(void)
> > 1509:   rc = cifs_init_inodecache();
> >
> > hpfs/super.c
> > 254:static int init_inodecache(void)
> > 771:    int err = init_inodecache();
> >
> > minix/inode.c
> > 84:static int __init init_inodecache(void)
> > 665:    int err = init_inodecache();
> >
> 
> Hi Gao,
> 
> "They did it first" is never a good reply for code review comments.
> Nobody cares if you copy&paste code with init_inodecache().
> I understand why you thought static function names do not pollute
> the (linker) namespace, but they do pollute the global namespace.
> 
> free_inode() as a local function name is one of the worst examples
> for VFS namespace pollution.
> 
> VFS code uses function names like those a lot in the global namespace, e.g.:
> clear_inode(),new_inode().
> 
> For example from recent history of namespace collision caused by your line
> of thinking, see:
> e6fd2093a85d md: namespace private helper names
> 
> Besides, you really have nothing to loose from prefixing everything
> with erofs_, do you? It's better for review, for debugging...

Hi Amir,

Thanks for you kind reply...

Yes, I understand that some generic header files
could have the same function names and cause bad
behaviors...

I will fix them, my only one question is "if all
function/variable names are prefixed with "erofs_"
(including all inline helpers in header files),
it seems somewhat strange... (too many statements
start "erofs_" in the source code...)"

I will fix common and short names at once...

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Thanks,
> Amir.