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

[Johannes Thumshirn <morbidrsa@gmail.com>]

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@suse.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