[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] Rename inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} to inode_eq_iversion{+raw}
From:       Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack () libero ! it>
Date:       2018-01-31 22:23:55
Message-ID: 77e08780-5f8b-5efd-d92d-c633f7b277a6 () libero ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

On 01/31/2018 10:55 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 09:43:09PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> The function inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} is counter-intuitive, because it
>> returns true when the counters are different and false when these are equal.
>>
>> Rename it to inode_eq_iversion{+raw}, which will returns true when
>> the counters are equal and false otherwise.
> 
> A lot of places use !inode_eq_iversion().  I think we should have both
> inode_eq_iversion() and inode_ne_iversion().

A function is needed because before doing the comparing, a "conversion"
is needed. 
My feeling is that the positive "form" is the more natural. And the notion
"!*eq*" is intuitive as the "*ne*".


> 
> Also, we have 'inode' in the name, why keep the 'i'?  inode_eq_version()
> and inode_ne_version() are shorter.  We could even go so far as
> iversion_eq() and iversion_ne() if keeping 'iversion' in the string
> is important.

All the functions introduced by Jeff are in the form inode_<verb>_iversion. 
So for consistency, inode_eq_iversion() makes sense.

> 


-- 
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D  17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]