Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de>
To:     "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, jlayton@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 09/14] NFSD: Clean up nfsd4_init_file()
In-reply-to: <166689675530.90991.2630847343462195612.stgit@klimt.1015granger.net>
References: <166689625728.90991.15067635142973595248.stgit@klimt.1015granger.net>,
 <166689675530.90991.2630847343462195612.stgit@klimt.1015granger.net>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 10:22:15 +1100
Message-id: <166691293591.13915.198182531468244072@noble.neil.brown.name>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Name nfs4_file-related helpers consistently. There are already
> nfs4_file_yada functions, so let's go with the same convention used
> by put_nfs4_file(): init_nfs4_file().

I don't understand.  You say "consistently", then you say that as we
have lots of "nfs4_file_yada" functions, this new one will NOT follow
that pattern.

Surely "consistency" means renaming put_nfs4_file() to nfs4_file_put(),
and introducing nfs4_file_init().

Not that I really care that much about the naming, but would like to be
able to follow your logic.

Thanks,
NeilBrown