Am 09.09.2019 um 10:02 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 05.09.19 15:05, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 09.08.2019 um 18:13 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> >> In order to make filters work in backing chains, the associated
> >> functions must be able to deal with them and freeze all filter links, be
> >> they COW or R/W filter links.
> >>
> >> In the process, rename these functions to reflect that they now act on
> >> generalized chains of filter nodes instead of backing chains alone.
> > 
> > I don't think this is a good idea. The functions are still following the
> > backing chain. A generic "chain" could mean following the bs->file links
> > or any other children, so the new name is confusing because it doesn't
> > really tell you any more what the function does. I'd prefer the name to
> > stay specific.
> They’re following backing chains, among others.
> 
> It would make sense to rename s/backing_chain/filter_chain/, that is, in
> case you don‘t find lumping COW and R/W filters together under “filter”
> too offensive.
> 
> (Naming things is hard.  I’m open for suggestions, but I found the
> “filter” concept succinct, even if it does not fully align with our
> existing parlance.)

As you could see in my reply to patch 4, I didn't. :-)

I think it makes a lot more sense to just broaden the meaning of "backing
chain" to be what you call a "filter chain" (following the backing file
links, but accept filter nodes in between), because of how unspecific
"filter chain" is. The primary thing we're interested in is still the
backing files.

Kevin