From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p97EI4C2242720 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:18:04 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id AD8B61B6375 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 82Zv27BvRxdQdXYO for ; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:17:59 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] xfs: clean up xfs_ioerror_alert Message-ID: <20111007141759.GA7948@infradead.org> References: <20111006210607.175284390@bombadil.infradead.org> <20111006210639.731475087@bombadil.infradead.org> <20111007015441.GD3159@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111007015441.GD3159@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 12:54:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Only thing I'm wondering about is whether is should be renamed > xfs_buf_ioerror_alert(), now that it really is a xfs_buf specific > function? That probably is a better name. There are a few other functions in the buffer code that are misnamed like that e.g. xfs_incore and to a lesser extent xfs_bwrite or XFS_bflush. > Also, many of the callers could probably pass __func__ rather than a > manually set string... True. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs