| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 07/15] refactor xfs_btree_readahead |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:35:22 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20080728153959.GA29132@xxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20080723200859.GH7401@xxxxxx> <20080724233655.GH15438@disturbed> <20080728153959.GA29132@xxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 05:39:59PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 09:36:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I've been wondering if this is the best naming convention - > > appending a single s or l to indicate short or long btree ops. > > Perhaps this would be better as xfs_btree_readahead_short() and > > xfs_btree_readahead_long(), esp. as we dropped the 'core' from > > the caller to make it xfs_btree_readahead(). > > I've renamedthe helpers to xfs_btree_readahead_lblock / > xfs_btree_readahead_slblock to match the naming for the other short / > long block helpers. Ok, that sounds reasonable. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 21/21] clean up xfs_bmap_btree.c, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.27, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 07/15] refactor xfs_btree_readahead, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 08/15] refactor btree validation helpers, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |