From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 01/17] VFS: introduce helpers for the s_dirty flag Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 22:14:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20100528211432.GM31073@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1274795352-3551-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> <1274795352-3551-2-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> <20100528132318.0783675a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Artem Bityutskiy , LKML , Jens Axboe , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Roman Zippel , "Tigran A. Aivazian" , Chris Mason , Boaz Harrosh , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , OGAWA Hirofumi , David Woodhouse , reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara , Evgeniy Dushistov To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100528132318.0783675a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 01:23:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > A more conventional and superior naming scheme is > subsystemid_specific_function_identifier(). eg, bio_add_page() instead > of add_page_to_bio(). > > So these want to be sb_mark_dirty(), etc. > > Being very old code written by very yound people, the VFS kinda ignores > that convention, but it doesn't hurt to use it for new code. > > Feel free to ignore me if that's too much of a PITA ;) The real issue is that it's almost certainly an overdesign. Let's get rid of the bogus uses first and figure out what's happening in what remains, OK? I have no problems with doing such wrappers, but if we touch every place using ->s_dirt anyway, let's at least take a good look at them. I'm mostly OK with what had emerged for the final patch in series, but...