linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] btrfs: reflow btrfs_free_tree

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

Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2023 19:53:22 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] btrfs: reflow btrfs_free_tree_block

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:33:02PM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 3:48 PM Johannes Thumshirn
> <johannes.thumshirn@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Reflow btrfs_free_tree_block() so that there is one level of indentation
> > needed.
> >
> > This patch has no functional changes.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> > index 4044102271e9..093aaf7aeb3a 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> > @@ -3426,6 +3426,7 @@ void btrfs_free_tree_block(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >  {
> >         struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = trans->fs_info;
> >         struct btrfs_ref generic_ref = { 0 };
> > +       struct btrfs_block_group *cache;
> 
> While at it, can we rename 'cache' to something like 'bg'?
> 
> The cache name comes from the times where the structure was named
> btrfs_block_group_cache, and having it named cache is always
> confusing.

Agreed, using the new names in new code is highly recommended,
unfortunatelly we still have too many places using 'cache'.