[PATCH 1/2] xfs: rename the old_crc variable in xlog_recover_process

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

old_crc is a very misleading name.  Rename it to expected_crc as that
described the usage much better.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 17 ++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
index e6ed9e09c027..0a4db8efd903 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
@@ -2894,20 +2894,19 @@ xlog_recover_process(
 	int			pass,
 	struct list_head	*buffer_list)
 {
-	__le32			old_crc = rhead->h_crc;
-	__le32			crc;
+	__le32			expected_crc = rhead->h_crc, crc;
 
 	crc = xlog_cksum(log, rhead, dp, be32_to_cpu(rhead->h_len));
 
 	/*
 	 * Nothing else to do if this is a CRC verification pass. Just return
 	 * if this a record with a non-zero crc. Unfortunately, mkfs always
-	 * sets old_crc to 0 so we must consider this valid even on v5 supers.
-	 * Otherwise, return EFSBADCRC on failure so the callers up the stack
-	 * know precisely what failed.
+	 * sets expected_crc to 0 so we must consider this valid even on v5
+	 * supers.  Otherwise, return EFSBADCRC on failure so the callers up the
+	 * stack know precisely what failed.
 	 */
 	if (pass == XLOG_RECOVER_CRCPASS) {
-		if (old_crc && crc != old_crc)
+		if (expected_crc && crc != expected_crc)
 			return -EFSBADCRC;
 		return 0;
 	}
@@ -2918,11 +2917,11 @@ xlog_recover_process(
 	 * zero CRC check prevents warnings from being emitted when upgrading
 	 * the kernel from one that does not add CRCs by default.
 	 */
-	if (crc != old_crc) {
-		if (old_crc || xfs_has_crc(log->l_mp)) {
+	if (crc != expected_crc) {
+		if (expected_crc || xfs_has_crc(log->l_mp)) {
 			xfs_alert(log->l_mp,
 		"log record CRC mismatch: found 0x%x, expected 0x%x.",
-					le32_to_cpu(old_crc),
+					le32_to_cpu(expected_crc),
 					le32_to_cpu(crc));
 			xfs_hex_dump(dp, 32);
 		}
-- 
2.47.2