[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 16/21] implement generic xfs_btree_lshift

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] implement generic xfs_btree_lshift
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:35:03 +0200
In-reply-to: <20080802012803.GO6201@disturbed>
References: <20080729193132.GQ19104@xxxxxx> <20080730062422.GQ13395@disturbed> <20080801195249.GJ1263@xxxxxx> <20080802012803.GO6201@disturbed>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 11:28:03AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> It might make sense to go back to a single implementation,
> though at the time I did it it made sense to split the move/copy
> operations because it made both cases simpler. Seeing as you've
> stuck more closely to the original structure of the code, the
> distinction is not as great as so it might be best to go back to a
> single memmove based interface.

Btw, one other idea I still have in my mind is to add rec_len
and key_len methods to the core btree code, that way quite a few
methods (ptr_addr, key_addr, rec_addr, set_key, move_keys, move_recs,
copy_keys, copy_recs, log_keys, and log_recs) could be implemented
in common code, leaving the actual btree implementations really small.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>