From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] block_dev: Rename bd_fsfreeze_mutex Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:43:54 -0400 Message-ID: <9c144de1-72bc-50b8-b828-afe7a5d371aa@redhat.com> References: <1505760831-7747-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <1505760831-7747-3-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20170918234745.GA8600@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170918234745.GA8600@infradead.org> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, Bart Van Assche On 09/18/2017 07:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Don't rename it to a way to long name. Either add a separate mutex > for your purpose (unless there is interaction between freezing and > blktrace, which I doubt), or properly comment the usage. I would agree with you if the long name causes the expressions hard to read. In this particular case, it is just the single parameter to the mutex_lock() and mutex_unlock() functions. There is no confusion and overly long lines. So I think it is OK. In fact, I got the opposite advices in the past that some people prefer long descriptive names than short and cryptic names. Cheers, Longman