On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 11:51 AM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon 08-09-25 17:39:22, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > I think generic_delete_inode is a really bad name for what the routine > > is doing and it perhaps contributes to the confusion in the thread. > > > > Perhaps it could be renamed to inode_op_stub_always_drop or similar? I > > don't for specifics, apart from explicitly stating that the return > > value is to drop and bonus points for a prefix showing this is an > > inode thing. > > I think inode_always_drop() would be fine... sgtm. unfortunately there are quite a few consumers, so I don't know if this is worth the churn and consequently I'm not going for it. But should you feel inclined... ;-) -- Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
