linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btrfs: remove extent buffer's redundant `len` member field

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]

Message-ID: <CAPjX3FctaJkUwv3ZsEfuamBhLwD5=MzoyWAotV2CN9-eJrxWZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:09:28 +0200
From: Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.com>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <morbidrsa@...il.com>
Cc: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...nel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, 
	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: remove extent buffer's redundant `len` member field

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:09, Johannes Thumshirn <morbidrsa@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:26:08AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:50 AM Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Nah, thanks again. I was not aware of that. Will keep it in mind.
> > >
> > > Still, it doesn't make sense to me to be honest. I mean specifically
> > > with this example. The header file is also private to btrfs, no public
> > > API. Personally I wouldn't differentiate if it's a source or a header
> > > file. The code can be freely moved around. And with the prefix the
> > > code would end up more bloated and less readable, IMO. But let's not
> > > start any flamewars here.
> >
> > I'd disagree about less readability. Reading code that calls a
> > function with the btrfs prefix makes it clear it's a btrfs specific
> > function.
> > Looking at ext4 and xfs, functions declared or defined in their
> > headers have a "ext4_", "ext_" or "xfs_" prefix.
>
> To add my $.02 here, it is also a matter of namespacing. There's nothing more
> anoying than having two functions with the same name in different subsystems.
> IIRC we did have this with the in_range() function, that is available globally
> and there has been a btrfs specific as well.

Yeah, I've been there. Unloading debug symbols of some module(s) from
the debugger due to collisions/aliases. That indeed can be very
annoying.

> Byte,
>         Johannes