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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230804090621.400-1-elver@google.com> <20230804090621.400-2-elver@google.com>
 <20230804120308.253c5521@gandalf.local.home> <CANpmjNNN6b9L72DoLzu5usGGjLw5Li8rnfu0VuaCsL-p2iKTgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230804135757.400eab72@gandalf.local.home> <20230804135902.7925ebb6@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20230804135902.7925ebb6@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 20:08:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CANpmjNPqfucNx7NdPOGSjjYgiZHntaBozGY1_rOSC4Wn4YCF1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] list_debug: Introduce inline wrappers for debug checks
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 19:59, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 13:57:57 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:49:48 +0200
> > Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I've been guilty of this madness myself, but I have learned the errors of
> > > > my ways, and have been avoiding doing so in any new code I write.
> > >
> > > That's fair. We can call them __list_*_valid() (inline), and
> > > __list_*_valid_or_report() ?
> >
> > __list_*_valid_check() ?

Well, in patch 3/3, the inline function will also do a reduced set of
checking, so "valid_check" is also misleading because both will do
checks.

The key distinguishing thing between the inline and non-inline version
is that the non-inline version will check more things, and also
produce reports.

So I can see

 1. __list_*_valid_or_report()
 2. __list_*_full_valid()

To be appropriate. Preference?

> I have to admit, I think the main reason kernel developers default to using
> these useless underscores is because kernel developers are notoriously
> lousy at naming. ;-)

Heh, naming is hard. ;-)