On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 07:42:48AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:

On 2021/2/23 上午12:40, Nikolay Borisov wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <redacted>

Considering how small the export is, I prefer this to be merged with
next patch, as it's much easier to understand why we want to export the
function.

And since it will be exported, may be it's a good idea to rename it as
btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta_atomic() or btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta_noflush()?

Yes the exported functions should have the btrfs_ prefix and because
that needs changing all callers it's usually a good idea to do it in a
separate patch.

About the rename, using _atomic could be confusing as it has already two
other meanings in linux.  There's already __btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta,
looking at all the other reserve_meta helpers, I think we can keep it as
btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta, but the _noflush suffix also makes sense.