From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D154C2BB1D for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:47:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411A420719 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:47:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731599AbgCPOrl (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:47:41 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:54747 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731445AbgCPOrl (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:47:41 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 126CC68BFE; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:47:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:47:38 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: add a new xfs_sb_version_has_large_dinode helper Message-ID: <20200316144738.GA19966@lst.de> References: <20200312142235.550766-1-hch@lst.de> <20200312142235.550766-2-hch@lst.de> <20200316131649.GE12313@bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200316131649.GE12313@bfoster> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 09:16:49AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > A comment would be useful here to indicate what this means (i.e., we can > assume v3 inode format). Sure. > The function name is a little vague too I > suppose (will the inode ever get larger than large? :P). I wonder if > something like _has_v3_inode() is more clear, but we can always change > it easily enough and either way is better than hascrc() IMO. I'm not too fond of the v3 name as the check also guards any newer version (but then again I hope we never need to rev the version..)