From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:17:30 +0200 Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 08/27] iomap: add the new iomap_iter model In-Reply-To: <20210719214838.GK664593@dread.disaster.area> References: <20210719103520.495450-1-hch@lst.de> <20210719103520.495450-9-hch@lst.de> <20210719214838.GK664593@dread.disaster.area> Message-ID: <20210726081730.GC14853@lst.de> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 07:48:38AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > We should avoid namespace conflicts where function names shadow > object types. iomap_iterate() is fine as the function name - there's > no need for abbreviation here because it's not an overly long name. > This will makes it clearly different to the struct iomap_iter that > is passed to it and it will also make grep, cscope and other > code searching tools much more precise... Well, there isn't really a conflict by definition. I actually like this choice of names (stolen from the original patch from willy) as it clearly indicates they go together. But I'm happy to collect a few more opinions.