From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA85900015 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:06:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lagv1 with SMTP id v1so153464045lag.3 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:06:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t1si4122433wif.84.2015.04.21.08.06.04 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:05:59 +0200 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/49] writeback: move backing_dev_info->bdi_stat[] into bdi_writeback Message-ID: <20150421150559.GB32616@quack.suse.cz> References: <1428350318-8215-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1428350318-8215-13-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20150420150231.GA17020@quack.suse.cz> <20150420175626.GB4206@htj.duckdns.org> <20150421085119.GA24278@quack.suse.cz> <20150421150229.GA9455@htj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150421150229.GA9455@htj.duckdns.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Jan Kara , axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, lizefan@huawei.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.cz, clm@fb.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, david@fromorbit.com, gthelen@google.com, Miklos Szeredi , Trond Myklebust On Tue 21-04-15 11:02:29, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:51:19AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > I can easily understand what "initializing writeback structure" means but > > "exiting writeback structure" doesn't really make sense to me. OTOH > > "destroying writeback structure" does make sense to me. That's the only > > reason. > > We have enough cases where "exit" is used that way starting with > module_exit() and all the accompanying __exit annotations and there > are quite a few others. I think it's enough to establish "exit" as > the counterpart of "init" but I do agree that it felt a bit alien to > me at the beginning too. > > In general, I've been sticking with create/destroy if the object > itself is being created or destroyed and init/exit if the object > itself stays put across init/exit which is the case here. This isn't > quite universal but I think there exists enough of a pattern to make > it worthwhile to stick to it. As such, I'd like to stick to the > current names if it isn't a big deal. It's not a big deal, so feel free to keep your naming. It's not a function I'd stare at every day ;) Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org