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=-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 0B045C3A59F for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 06:49:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8152377D for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 06:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726275AbfHaGtq (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Aug 2019 02:49:46 -0400 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.188]:3985 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725953AbfHaGtp (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Aug 2019 02:49:45 -0400 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 To: Amir Goldstein CC: Christoph Hellwig , Alexander Viro , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , Theodore Ts'o , Pavel Machek , David Sterba , "Darrick J . Wong" , Dave Chinner , Jaegeuk Kim , Jan Kara , Linus Torvalds , linux-fsdevel , , LKML , , Chao Yu , Miao Xie , Li Guifu , Fang Wei 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.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 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.