From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725D17F8D for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:09:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6137F304032 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 05:09:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2ogLSl4RkCE075xy (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 05:09:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 08:09:26 -0500 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: pass mp to XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_* Message-ID: <20150209130926.GA18336@laptop.bfoster> References: <54D53E8C.8070207@redhat.com> <20150208213502.GA4251@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150208213502.GA4251@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss 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@fromorbit.com > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs