[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c144de1-72bc-50b8-b828-afe7a5d371aa@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:43:54 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] block_dev: Rename bd_fsfreeze_mutex
On 09/18/2017 07:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Don't rename it to a way to long name. Either add a separate mutex
> for your purpose (unless there is interaction between freezing and
> blktrace, which I doubt), or properly comment the usage.
I would agree with you if the long name causes the expressions hard to
read. In this particular case, it is just the single parameter to the
mutex_lock() and mutex_unlock() functions. There is no confusion and
overly long lines. So I think it is OK. In fact, I got the opposite
advices in the past that some people prefer long descriptive names than
short and cryptic names.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists