From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144927F98 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:42:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973C5AC001 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 08:42:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id B3nEulSAVOQo2XXm for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 08:42:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54D8E383.4020906@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:42:43 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: pass mp to XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_* References: <54D53E8C.8070207@redhat.com> <20150208213502.GA4251@dastard> <20150209130926.GA18336@laptop.bfoster> In-Reply-To: <20150209130926.GA18336@laptop.bfoster> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster , Dave Chinner Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On 2/9/15 7:09 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 08:35:02AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:22:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> These 2 patches provide information about which filesystem >>> hit the error... >> >> If we are going to touch every one of these macros, then can we >> rename them to something a little shorter like XFS_CORRUPT_GOTO() >> and XFS_CORRUPT_RETURN() at the same time? That will make the code a >> little less eye-bleedy where there are lots of these statements, >> and make formatting of complex checks a bit easier, too... >> > > XFS_CORRUPT_DOSOMETHING() jumps out to me as indicate corruption if the > logic statement evaluates as true rather than false. The latter (e.g., > assert-like logic) is how they work today, so that could be a bit > confusing to somebody who isn't already familiar with how these macros > work. > > Unfortunately, nothing shorter than the current naming immediately comes > to mind... :/ We could kill the XFS_ prefix I suppose or even invert the > logic of the calls, but that's certainly a more significant change. > Thoughts? Right, so today it's XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN(thing_that_should_be_true) and I agree, that's always felt a bit odd. Dave suggests XFS_CORRUPT_RETURN(thing_that_should_be_true) I guess the "WANT" was supposed to imply that the argument is the test that we "want" to be true? :) I'm not super excited about inverting every test, but we could ... XFS_CORRUPT_RETURN_IF_NOT(test) would be explicit, at least. Or XFS_CORRUPT_RETURN_UNLESS(test). I can't think of a nice short name that conveys more meaning, either, but I'm not really sure that it's critical to change it at this point. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs