On 2018年01月27日 03:46, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 08:31:06PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> On 01/26/2018 07:40 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>>> From: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is a great work; only few comments:
>> 1) I found not intuitive the naming of the function: i.e. you have
>>
>> btrfs_util_create_snapshot()
>> btrfs_util_f_create_snapshot()
>>
>> To me it seems more clear to have
>>
>> btrfs_util_create_snapshot()
>> btrfs_util_create_snapshot_f()
>>
>> I think that it is better move the 'f' at the end: at the begin you have the
>> library "btrfs_util", in the middle you have the library function
>> 'create_snapshot', at the end there is the function variant ('f', because it
>> uses a file descriptor).
>>
>> This is my opinion, even tough there are both examples like you
>> (stat/fstat/lstat) and like my one (capt_get_fd/cap_get_file)...
>
> Yup, I was going off of the fstat/fsync/etc. convention. I don't
> particularly like, e.g., btrfs_create_snapshot_f(), but
> btrfs_create_snapshot_fd() isn't so bad._fd() suffix sounds more reasonable to me too. > >> 2) I find the prefix 'btrfs_util_' a bit verbose. Why not a simple 'btrfs_', >> even at the cost of a possible renaming of the conflicting function in the >> current btrfs code. > > That's a reasonable idea, I mostly wanted to avoid naming conflicts but > if this is the "one true Btrfs library" it shouldn't be a concern. Unfortunately, at least there is also some planned work to bring a shared code base between kernel and btrfs-progs, which is also named libbtrfs, inspired by libxfs. And depending on the respect of view, some developer may prefer the short btrfs_ prefix for libbtrfs, while other developers/users will definitely prefer btrfs_ prefix for libbtrfsutil. What about shorted prefix like butil_ or btrutil_? Thanks, Qu > > I'll wait a bit for people to bikeshed on the naming before I go and > rename everything, but I'm leaning towards the shorter name and > appending _fd instead of prepending f_. > >> 3) regarding the btrfs_util_create_snapshot() function, I think that it >> would be useful to add some more information: >> a) if used recursive is NOT atomic >> b) if used recursive, root capabilities are needed >> >> The same for the other functions: mark with a 'root required' tag all the >> functions which require the root capabilities. > > That's a great point, I'll document that. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
