From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/58] unify fs/inode.c callers of clear_inode()
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:00:47 -0400
Message-ID: <20100609130047.GA3861@infradead.org>
References: <E1OM74i-0004XF-VD@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:48516 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752585Ab0FINAs (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:00:48 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E1OM74i-0004XF-VD@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

> +static void evict(struct inode *inode, int delete)

How about calling this evict_inode?  That gives a better grepable
identifier in backtraces and also fits the tradition of other
wrappers for methods.

> +{
> +	const struct super_operations *op = inode->i_sb->s_op;
> +
> +	if (delete && op->delete_inode) {
> +		op->delete_inode(inode);

What's the point in having the local op variable?