From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: Provide function to get superblock and wait for it to thaw Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:16:33 +1100 Message-ID: <20120210231633.GH12836@dastard> References: <1328654267-18855-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1328654267-18855-2-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20120208232049.GC7479@dastard> <20120208232705.GF1696@quack.suse.cz> <20120208234703.GG1696@quack.suse.cz> <4F33F640.7040508@sandeen.net> <20120210094858.GC10509@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Sandeen , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML , mpatocka@redhat.com To: Jan Kara Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120210094858.GC10509@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 09-02-12 10:37:20, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > would "wait_for_thaw" vs. "thaw" be any clearer? Nitpicky I guess but the > > meaning of "thawed" isn't immediately clear here. If it's already thawed? If > > we want to wait for it it to be thawed? You can figure it out from the callers > > but maybe a comment or a different name might help. No big deal. > How about "wait_thaw". That should be explicit enough... IMO, wait_for_thaw is much easier to read (i.e. better english ;) and hence the code documents itself better. There's no reason to skimp on characters here - it's not a heavily used variable.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com