linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: Provide function to get superblock and wait for it to thaw

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:16:33 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	mpatocka@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: Provide function to get superblock and wait for
 it to thaw

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 09-02-12 10:37:20, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > would "wait_for_thaw" vs. "thaw" be any clearer?  Nitpicky I guess but the
> > meaning of "thawed" isn't immediately clear here.  If it's already thawed?  If
> > we want to wait for it it to be thawed?  You can figure it out from the callers
> > but maybe a comment or a different name might help.  No big deal.
>   How about "wait_thaw". That should be explicit enough...

IMO, wait_for_thaw is much easier to read (i.e. better english ;) and
hence the code documents itself better. There's no reason to skimp
on characters here - it's not a heavily used variable....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/