linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c: Clean up ffsCamelCase function names

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:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:10:07 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Julian Preis <julian.preis@....de>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, valdis.kletnieks@...edu,
        Johannes Weidner <johannes.weidner@....de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c: Clean up
 ffsCamelCase function names

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 03:16:23PM +0100, Julian Preis wrote:
> Rename every instance of <ffsCamelCaseExample> to <ffs_camel_case_example>
> in file exfat_super.c. Fix resulting overlong lines.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Johannes Weidner <johannes.weidner@....de>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weidner <johannes.weidner@....de>
> Signed-off-by: Julian Preis <julian.preis@....de>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Add email recipients according to get_maintainer.pl
> - Add patch versions
> - Use in-reply-to
> 
>  drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c | 99 +++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c
> index 6e481908c59f..14ff3fce70fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c
> @@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ static inline void exfat_save_attr(struct inode *inode, u32 attr)
>  		EXFAT_I(inode)->fid.attr = attr & (ATTR_RWMASK | ATTR_READONLY);
>  }
>  
> -static int ffsMountVol(struct super_block *sb)
> +static int ffs_mount_vol(struct super_block *sb)

Why do these static functions even have to have "ffs" at the front of
them anyway?  There's no requirement here, right?  Shouldn't this just
be "mount_vol()"?

thanks,

greg k-h