Re: [PATCH 11/26] libbtrfsutil: add btrfs_util_create_snapshot()

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2716 bytes --]



On 2018年01月27日 03:46, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 08:31:06PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> On 01/26/2018 07:40 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>>> From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is a great work; only few comments:
>> 1) I found not intuitive the naming of the function: i.e. you have 
>>
>> btrfs_util_create_snapshot()
>> btrfs_util_f_create_snapshot()
>>
>> To me it seems more clear to have
>>
>> btrfs_util_create_snapshot()
>> btrfs_util_create_snapshot_f()
>>
>> I think that it is better move the 'f' at the end: at the begin you have the library "btrfs_util", in the middle you have the library function 'create_snapshot', at the end there is the function variant ('f', because it uses a file descriptor).
>>
>> This is my opinion, even tough there are both examples like you (stat/fstat/lstat) and like my one (capt_get_fd/cap_get_file)...
> 
> Yup, I was going off of the fstat/fsync/etc. convention. I don't
> particularly like, e.g., btrfs_create_snapshot_f(), but
> btrfs_create_snapshot_fd() isn't so bad.

_fd() suffix sounds more reasonable to me too.

> 
>> 2) I find the prefix 'btrfs_util_' a bit verbose. Why not a simple 'btrfs_', even at the cost of a possible renaming of the conflicting function in the current btrfs code.
> 
> That's a reasonable idea, I mostly wanted to avoid naming conflicts but
> if this is the "one true Btrfs library" it shouldn't be a concern.

Unfortunately, at least there is also some planned work to bring a
shared code base between kernel and btrfs-progs, which is also named
libbtrfs, inspired by libxfs.

And depending on the respect of view, some developer may prefer the
short btrfs_ prefix for libbtrfs, while other developers/users will
definitely prefer btrfs_ prefix for libbtrfsutil.

What about shorted prefix like butil_ or btrutil_?

Thanks,
Qu

> 
> I'll wait a bit for people to bikeshed on the naming before I go and
> rename everything, but I'm leaning towards the shorter name and
> appending _fd instead of prepending f_.
> 
>> 3) regarding the btrfs_util_create_snapshot() function, I think that it would be useful to add some more information:
>> a) if used recursive is NOT atomic
>> b) if used recursive, root capabilities are needed
>>
>> The same for the other functions: mark with a 'root required' tag all the functions which require the root capabilities.
> 
> That's a great point, I'll document that.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 520 bytes --]