On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:10:30PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2018年04月19日 18:59, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > > > > On 19.04.2018 12:38, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> Although we have already checked incompat flags manually before really > >> mounting it, we could still enhance btrfs_check_super_valid() to check > >> incompat flags for later write time super block validation check. > >> > >> This patch adds such incompat flags check for btrfs_check_super_valid(), > >> currently it won't be triggered, but provides the basis for later write > >> time check. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx> > > > >> --- > >> fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > >> index 60caa68c3618..ec123158f051 100644 > >> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > >> @@ -4104,6 +4104,19 @@ static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) > > > > nit: Thinking out loud here - wouldn't it make more sense to name the > > function btrfs_validate_super. check_super_valid sounds a bit cumbersome > > to me. What do you think ? > > Indeed, I also like to remove the btrfs_ prefix since it's a static > function. > validate_super() looks much better. It's not necessary to remove the btrfs_ prefix from all static functions, sometimes the functions appear on stacks or mixed with other subystem helpers that have generic names. The prefix makes it clear that it's our function. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
