Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 01:52:36 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Jiangshan Yi <13667453960@163.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        willy@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jiangshan Yi <yijiangshan@kylinos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/efs/inode.c: use __func__ instead of function name
Message-ID: <YykO1A0CDGwsEDZT@ZenIV>
References: <20220919023314.3622391-1-13667453960@163.com>
 <YykIOg0ApQycqOxu@ZenIV>
 <YykLOUfit5r6cqxq@debian>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YykLOUfit5r6cqxq@debian>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:37:13AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 01:24:26AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:33:14AM +0800, Jiangshan Yi wrote:
> > > From: Jiangshan Yi <yijiangshan@kylinos.cn>
> > > 
> > > It is better to use __func__ instead of function name.
> > 
> > 	Why is it better?  And why is it *not* sent to (active)
> > maintainers of fs/erofs?  I'm not going to apply that behind their
> > backs and I would ask akpm to abstain from taking that one.
> 
> It's efs although it also starts with letter e and ends with fs ;).
> I have no idea who actually takes care of it now.

*blink*

I plead obscenely low caffeine blood levels.

And I'm still not taking that patch - IMO that kind of stuff is absolutely
pointless from anyone other than active maintainers of some code;
the rationale for using __func__ is based upon the possibility of
function getting renamed, and that's not going to happen on inactive
codebase.

IOW, *if* somebody is starting a serious work in that area - sure, might
as well throw that kind of change in, as part of the series.  Other than
that, though...  No.