From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 60DA9C43603 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36DE5206EC for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=osandov-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@osandov-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="n8CHcSEb" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727757AbfLJSdA (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:33:00 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f195.google.com ([209.85.214.195]:37965 "EHLO mail-pl1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727329AbfLJSdA (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:33:00 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f195.google.com with SMTP id o8so202157pls.5 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:32:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=osandov-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=SWtesY2/RpLOr0mu8EFTXSPAhy6m8xNx9PpNak1K6cc=; b=n8CHcSEbNjCUmS9QB9/EH8RRGAE5Hl1sGdGRkHPeaE9MxdZB3wvCwJ/IgGTlN+41sH /9qWrp7eFhbPnKmCNWXEb7DvSsdX5bBynF3RVQmBkSwTRtYodO8yyeqDnx26RGb8e2g8 pR/tqCxhR3d/VJJekO2LXraPMZf0XOSfUBfoPOwzSggdgi+X5GodWdg0ByNgTIijqx/f f2q3enmaPUMuyJoiqwrwC93hQ71j/7QzcfsxbunHm958HkLMl+hPR54Xj32fRNCI6PHw sj+2SW0jmSfcd/IXPf8jM3PIVUB7Lb/MW48enbnFUMFdsiQ/nMs31Ldc50StbnAxp/8e LeNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=SWtesY2/RpLOr0mu8EFTXSPAhy6m8xNx9PpNak1K6cc=; b=O2MlnTwoNzEIiw8n+UNsT9OzIeJ2TBY68VRpFuVj3Ciqmh6FJUuyiAHoQFpJb7kda8 aefMG1aVecGxf53ZNX3BJ9/cTxvUWrppvmq7XqHahTMrHntLCGcUD8bQsFC4MpPQBaBk KW3/SDO/jL6HECBQo94y4aNuaSiRJb7owLvGO/p3ahlRK6e7dmZJUa2/IR3JxnLz39uV k7qQFBkaDf3HzFUJIFn9/3QT68VWLXobIw5jjF+QW5wQ9g2R+E/lkZAHNK9rnahpJPB0 0o6lyAMRM/+6GfYm6lBT5GrFHDT5Cb5FTLIB0oKdrI5w4Vj6D7EjJeDkEBUBd5Dcwnxa BS5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVWasWWf+tvmEfspT7OyOVg5JWcRcK02TQkkm652OzP3e/GalBy mH3HxE1etmitrM1s3hvKd5VVIqNZJ7LFig== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGu5UF9l6ywl8ZE36k2o9/Y1RajAfMYCgWXoQH2ZjyYlIFcxdKGyCzQhiwYRF8BGQdAV922A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d203:: with SMTP id t3mr36955779ply.122.1576002779082; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:32:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from vader ([2620:10d:c090:200::1:c519]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u23sm4312201pfm.29.2019.12.10.10.32.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:32:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:32:57 -0800 From: Omar Sandoval To: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] btrfs: make btrfs_ordered_extent naming consistent with btrfs_file_extent_item Message-ID: <20191210183257.GB204474@vader> References: <1a8119f808ba10f315b4b6a37ce27896f1b113a4.1575336815.git.osandov@fb.com> <20191210182252.GF3929@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191210182252.GF3929@twin.jikos.cz> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 07:22:52PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:34:19PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > From: Omar Sandoval > > > > ordered->start, ordered->len, and ordered->disk_len correspond to > > fi->disk_bytenr, fi->num_bytes, and fi->disk_num_bytes, respectively. > > It's confusing to translate between the two naming schemes. Since a > > btrfs_ordered_extent is basically a pending btrfs_file_extent_item, > > let's make the former use the naming from the latter. > > > > Note that I didn't touch the names in tracepoints just in case there are > > scripts depending on the current naming. > > Ok, though we've changed tracepoint strings as needed, it's sort of ABI > but also not. In this case the change would affect 4 tracepoints. What would you prefer in this case?