On 13.07.2018 14:27, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 07/12/2018 03:43 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10.07.2018 21:22, Anand Jain wrote:
>>> Move the section of the code which performs the check if the device is
>>> indelible, move that into a helper function.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com>
>>> ---
>>> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 49
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>>> index 59a6d8f42c98..feb29c5b44f6 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>>> @@ -1945,6 +1945,33 @@ static inline u64 btrfs_num_devices(struct
>>> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
>>> return num_devices;
>>> }
>>> +static struct btrfs_device *btrfs_device_delete_able(
>>
>> Ugliest name ever! So this function is not really a predicate, rather
>> it's used to fetch the struct btrfs_device * to delete. So a more
>> becoming name would be:
>>
>> btrfs_get_device_for_delete - though this a bit verbose.
>>
>> I guess btrfs_can_delete_device is more suitable if you want to follow
>> this predicate style. At the very least, though, the correct form of the
>> adjective is deletable so it should be btrfs_device_deletable. But as I
>> said this function is not really used as a predicate.
>
> Its a predicate, return of the device pointer is just a by-product.
> Will use btrfs_device_deletable().
Then it's fundamentally wrong, a predicate should really return true or
false. This function actually tries to acquire a device which will only
happen if it meets certain criterion, so I'm inclined to say it's not
really a predicate but rather tries to acquire a reference to a device
which meets certain criteria.
<snip>
--
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
