On 9/7/20 11:00 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 09:58:13AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:45:00 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 9/6/20 11:48 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>> On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 04:05:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> There's a trivial io_uring patch that depends on this one. If this one >>>>> is acceptable to you, I'd like to queue it up in the io_uring branch for >>>>> 5.10. >>>> >>>> Can you give it a better name? These __ names re just horrible. >>>> sock_shutdown_sock? >>> >>> Sure, I don't really care, just following what is mostly done already. And >>> it is meant to be internal in the sense that it's not exported to modules. >>> >>> I'll let the net guys pass the final judgement on that, I'm obviously fine >>> with anything in terms of naming :-) >> >> So am I :) But if Christoph prefers sock_shutdown_sock() let's use that. > > Let's go with the original naming. I might eventually do a big > naming sweep in socket.c after cleaning up more of the compat mess.
Agree, saves me the hassle... FWIW, networking does have an even broader space of func to __func to ____func and in some cases not "following" the usual calling order of them. -- Jens Axboe
