From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.247]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D50B6B0169 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vwm42 with SMTP id 42so3541235vwm.14 for ; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:16:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1312195957-12223-2-git-send-email-per.forlin@linaro.org> References: <1312195957-12223-1-git-send-email-per.forlin@linaro.org> <1312195957-12223-2-git-send-email-per.forlin@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 01:16:20 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 1/2] fault-injection: improve naming of public function should_fail() From: Akinobu Mita Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Per Forlin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Jens Axboe , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Matt Mackall , linux-mm@kvack.org 2011/8/1 Per Forlin : > rename fault injection function should_fail() to fault_should_fail() fault_should_fail sounds tautological. fault_should_inject() is better, but I'm not sure. Should we retain the naming issue and go forward to merge mmc fault injection first? -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org