From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/58] unify fs/inode.c callers of clear_inode()
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:15:59 +0100
Message-ID: <20100609131559.GY31073@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <E1OM74i-0004XF-VD@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20100609130047.GA3861@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:34356 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756884Ab0FINP7 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:15:59 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100609130047.GA3861@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 09:00:47AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +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?

Shorter and more readable?  See generic_delete_inode() in mainline for
origin of that...