On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 07:42:48AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2021/2/23 上午12:40, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nbori...@suse.com> > > Considering how small the export is, I prefer this to be merged with > next patch, as it's much easier to understand why we want to export the > function. > > And since it will be exported, may be it's a good idea to rename it as > btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta_atomic() or btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta_noflush()?
Yes the exported functions should have the btrfs_ prefix and because that needs changing all callers it's usually a good idea to do it in a separate patch. About the rename, using _atomic could be confusing as it has already two other meanings in linux. There's already __btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta, looking at all the other reserve_meta helpers, I think we can keep it as btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta, but the _noflush suffix also makes sense.
