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.jain@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
