From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E363A225780 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 15:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734621124; cv=none; b=Q/k423N3P1VLZtVPkb3rH8v3Jvguolo5tJqTboYdg72OUJpxJNYOLeYptbLgaKrtE9eNURqlPgkD05Fluc24j1xs12EmL59HDwqrEzp+Yy3STOPfDfpPXAfD/xJUZgKCtw4smX91LUE0E1mp+/l6w2usTcA9WX7339KwF+K7Nbo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734621124; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Q96ikkXx5H1v85tIMZfMFL+VBMwaxkRuI18KRto2sZ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KpRIhqHW46AmA3hsxTj9DEjnOFlj8nHskkbe0Lq/fqguhzFGmCiM5NrZbAzKYIEHgGPwf8Eqi3RScIVAM8S0k8a7LRiqwJFHkrt5O/JBohMZt4PEiDB6UZIqejA/fp3A2uHdyeXHIa67Ws2IVc8An7LF3OqOd3Jgru98yj1k58g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=m7oATp3Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="m7oATp3Z" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 134EEC4CECE; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 15:12:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1734621123; bh=Q96ikkXx5H1v85tIMZfMFL+VBMwaxkRuI18KRto2sZ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=m7oATp3ZcL0FP19nz7M7exYxFCgD3jrJzov1AsE/Vu+JKwusY+2mgHidh4lKsRlVG 46TQaif+Dl2DOCLfWeTUJ8tjESYcVxMkqLvRyv6o7o459UU28EdGl/mWUAAQ6jJ/Dm e3EzOv+Amoyarh0HnrhDhfx7IcmO+pzqGK4skWAhNM71GBuHypzuCfLxOR9ybScfX0 r/iKibFTBAKfltgmJrrhrggKbrH9+LvzezY90d/Wi+DwKsN06/7H0NHVJCs5H4l+p6 qV6lRGTArwvqUGUsV+FQgrptL2KthFgzGs5/e4rHPsZOHQMzm74GMSMM/FOfOZhC2i Qz7x7D33/RglQ== Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 07:12:02 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Moshe Shemesh Cc: Przemek Kitszel , Tariq Toukan , , Saeed Mahameed , Gal Pressman , Leon Romanovsky , Mark Bloch , Yevgeny Kliteynik , "David S. Miller" , Paolo Abeni , Eric Dumazet , Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3 04/11] net/mlx5: fs, add mlx5_fs_pool API Message-ID: <20241219071202.777dab06@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20241218150949.1037752-1-tariqt@nvidia.com> <20241218150949.1037752-5-tariqt@nvidia.com> <0c6d6368-85ab-4112-a423-828a51b703e1@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:30:41 +0200 Moshe Shemesh wrote: > > Locally (say two lines above) your label name is obvious. > > But please imagine it in the context of whole function, it is much > > better to name labels after what they jump to (instead of what they > > jump from). It is not only easier to reason about, but also more > > future proof. I think Simon would agree. > > I'm fine with keeping existing code as-is, but for new code, it's > > always better to write it up to the best practices known. > > I tend to name labels according to what they jump from. Though if I see > on same function labels are used the other way I try to be consistent > with current code. > I think there are pros and cons for both ways and both ways are used. > I can change here, but is that kernel or netdev consensus ? Yes, there's a consensus now. But I think since all mlx* code uses the "jump source" naming mixing the two could lead to confusion for your internal developers, and bugs. So I'd say up to you :( -- Since Przemek found a real bug elsewhere: pw-bot: cr