From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49857 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751228AbeDSPdi (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:33:38 -0400
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 17:31:06 +0200
From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
Cc: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>, Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: Add incompat flags check for
 btrfs_check_super_valid()
Message-ID: <20180419153106.GJ21272@twin.jikos.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
References: <20180419093816.888-1-wqu@suse.com>
 <7e7554c2-28d1-5912-7f02-e1f87556a3a8@suse.com>
 <b94eaf2e-8d5e-23e9-0672-2eb5abd56ae8@gmx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <b94eaf2e-8d5e-23e9-0672-2eb5abd56ae8@gmx.com>
Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

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.