[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aBIE28WHbC2jPkpz@fedora>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 13:09:15 +0200
From: Johannes Thumshirn <morbidrsa@...il.com>
To: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: remove extent buffer's redundant `len` member
field
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.
Byte,
Johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists