From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7309AC07E95 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D38E6101E for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229500AbhGMRAw (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:00:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50772 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229478AbhGMRAw (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:00:52 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x12d.google.com (mail-lf1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C8F5C0613E9 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id a18so51473151lfs.10 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:58:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Yhm8DTXMwGH3edDwo8fP2AUueUVOXSOluzUis4TeCEM=; b=IouJxuG5ed7uAGJwLWz05WTIl3EyMHKLbOeZ/figWyyseOX1vqRylnWkg9X/sDBjjh 6pRMGIxq99s6Lcm7Cc6a1DP+lO+eTYQP1SmjxNrY9YgOxxVm/OGSkQg5LBNWmcbLY/9e lqi5l7xqvWJEepIBLkDtBnHKIIRMeYnt4R2Sg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Yhm8DTXMwGH3edDwo8fP2AUueUVOXSOluzUis4TeCEM=; b=gx25hNGDffHxTt1bQNRHU1rLpx7hGSlrLrtS1Flsq4csJC/tLVS0lJTRCEmS8wUqvi x3e7RE+nFV4pDrtPmhRsW0fD7xqMViJJ406GpokRIdE8xCW4mNVleOX28fU/ZAEfrlfH S02bf5hBaI7HrS6Z6neuBVKt4pHhbM6jfkA07Cxo3u/BDuXxkIKHuNyE4BXzmcmK+cJb KsUh89YLe89J//gzW/g9Esa8hgaS5TOPwI4TRXnW8aKLRkjSXZuzpOfYofgR0vfPY+/c DFctwGFgHdydHCY3QJHRcbhl45g+g2V+2vRONJM1y9YA+s6ZP+G9OrYq/x4Upl7rwmPp pCsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5326vFvUUCA65IG7dRPh2ZZOc21aOSEgo3YodruPyXYotB8FmLmh j7z3iMzb1YVG7XNa4UWT5Nmnk1sQzDLqNew2FC8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz9iviVwK52MkIi5FNvXvZ+RRv/gIHT7QoSAm2cGtZkRPz19o95vCiX6YgnjWwMdK5ATHq9Uw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:36d8:: with SMTP id e24mr4364784lfs.8.1626195479406; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f47.google.com (mail-lf1-f47.google.com. [209.85.167.47]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f2sm1500850lfa.261.2021.07.13.09.57.58 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f47.google.com with SMTP id u13so12265851lfs.11 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3f82:: with SMTP id x2mr3985242lfa.421.1626195478340; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210712123649.1102392-1-dkadashev@gmail.com> <20210712123649.1102392-2-dkadashev@gmail.com> <20210713145341.lngtd5g3p6zf5eoo@wittgenstein> In-Reply-To: <20210713145341.lngtd5g3p6zf5eoo@wittgenstein> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:57:42 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] namei: clean up do_rmdir retry logic To: Christian Brauner Cc: Dmitry Kadashev , Jens Axboe , Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel , io-uring Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 7:53 AM Christian Brauner wrote: > > Instead of naming all these $something_helper I would follow the > underscore naming pattern we usually do, i.e. instead of e.g. > rmdir_helper do __rmdir() or __do_rmdir(). That's certainly a pattern we have, but I don't necessarily love it. It would be even better if we'd have names that actually explain what/why the abstraction exists. In this case, it's the "possibly retry due to ESTALE", but I have no idea how to sanely name that. Making it "try_rmdir()" or something like that is the best I can come up with right now. On a similar note, the existing "do_rmdir()" and friends aren't wonderful names either, but we expose that name out so changing it is probably not worth it. But right now we have "vfs_rmdir()" and "do_rmdir()", and they are just different levels of the "rmdir stack", without the name really describing where in the stack they are. Naming is hard, and I don't think the double underscores have been wonderful either. Linus