Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: Add incompat flags check for btrfs_check_super_valid()

[Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>]

On 19.04.2018 18:31, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:10:30PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年04月19日 18:59, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19.04.2018 12:38, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>> Although we have already checked incompat flags manually before really
>>>> mounting it, we could still enhance btrfs_check_super_valid() to check
>>>> incompat flags for later write time super block validation check.
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds such incompat flags check for btrfs_check_super_valid(),
>>>> currently it won't be triggered, but provides the basis for later write
>>>> time check.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
>>>> index 60caa68c3618..ec123158f051 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
>>>> @@ -4104,6 +4104,19 @@ static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
>>>
>>> nit: Thinking out loud here - wouldn't it make more sense to name the
>>> function btrfs_validate_super. check_super_valid sounds a bit cumbersome
>>> to me. What do you think ?
>>
>> Indeed, I also like to remove the btrfs_ prefix since it's a static
>> function.
>> validate_super() looks much better.
> 
> It's not necessary to remove the btrfs_ prefix from all static
> functions, sometimes the functions appear on stacks or mixed with other
> subystem helpers that have generic names. The prefix makes it clear that
> it's our function.

I agree with David, just make it btrfs_validate_super
>