On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:43 AM Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 ? Why rename at all? It's pretty obvious it's a reference count. Count/counter is not an unusual name to use for a reference count, it even has get and put helpers... > > Thanks, > Anand > > > > Thanks. -- Filipe David Manana, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”
