On 3/6/20 6:19 pm, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:13 AM Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The name 'count' is a very commonly used name. It is often difficult to
review the code to check if there is any leak. So rename it to
'bg_count', which is unique enough.
Hum? Seriously?
count to bg_count?
It's a member of the block group structure, adding a bg_ prefix adds
no value at all, we know the count is related to the block group.
I could somewhat understand if you named it 'refcount' instead.
Oh right. Now, bg_count does not make sense to me as well.
Something like bg_refcount is better so that it is easy to search
where all its been used. IMO.
Are we ok with btrfs_block_group::bg_refcount instead ?
Thanks,
Anand
Thanks.
