From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:32155 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752118AbeAXGoj (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:44:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:44:32 +0800 From: Lu Fengqi To: , Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/67] btrfs-progs: add the stack prefix for the set/get Message-ID: <20180124064432.GG532@fnst.localdomain> References: <20180111050939.21251-1-lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20180123142949.GJ15713@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <20180123142949.GJ15713@twin.jikos.cz> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:50PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: >On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:08:32PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote: >> These set/get functions defined by BTRFS_SETGET_STACK_FUNCS macro is >> missing the prefix stack. I can't add an extent buffer version set/get >> function as the result of the function name conflict. > >Why do you need to add the extent buffer set/get helpers? I just want to use the extent_buffer version set helper to set the refs/flags of root_item. Of course, I can read_extent_buffer at first, then use the stack version set helper, and write_extent_buffer at last. > >The function names will become quite long after adding the _stack >string, so I'd rather be sure we really need it before changing the >names everywhere. Personally, I think we should follow the naming scheme to differentiate between the stack version helper and the extent_buffer version helper since we already have such a naming scheme. >-- >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 > > -- Thanks, Lu