On 19.04.2018 18:31, David Sterba wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <[email protected]> >>> >>>> --- >>>> 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.
I agree with David, just make it btrfs_validate_super > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
