From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1548F70 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:17:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id EC92468AFE; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:17:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:17:30 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , Dan Williams , Matthew Wilcox , Andreas Gruenbacher , Shiyang Ruan , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, cluster-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/27] iomap: add the new iomap_iter model Message-ID: <20210726081730.GC14853@lst.de> References: <20210719103520.495450-1-hch@lst.de> <20210719103520.495450-9-hch@lst.de> <20210719214838.GK664593@dread.disaster.area> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: nvdimm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210719214838.GK664593@dread.disaster.area> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 07:48:38AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > We should avoid namespace conflicts where function names shadow > object types. iomap_iterate() is fine as the function name - there's > no need for abbreviation here because it's not an overly long name. > This will makes it clearly different to the struct iomap_iter that > is passed to it and it will also make grep, cscope and other > code searching tools much more precise... Well, there isn't really a conflict by definition. I actually like this choice of names (stolen from the original patch from willy) as it clearly indicates they go together. But I'm happy to collect a few more opinions.