| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 3/6] cleanup maxrecs calculation |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:29:28 +0200 |
| In-reply-to: | <20080916053641.GV5811@disturbed> |
| References: | <20080915004648.GD12213@lst.de> <20080916053641.GV5811@disturbed> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:36:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 02:46:48AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > + mp->m_alloc_mxr[0] = xfs_allocbt_maxrecs(mp, sbp->sb_blocksize, 1); > > + mp->m_alloc_mxr[1] = xfs_allocbt_maxrecs(mp, sbp->sb_blocksize, 0); > > That's kind of strange - index 0 gets configured with a leaf (?) > value of 1, and index 1 with a value of 0. Can we change the order > of one of these so that the function and the variables match? > > Would a define for what the function parameter means make sense? > That way the code would document itself.... Yeah, probably should do this, currently the patch just keeps the calling conventions of the previous macros. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.27-rc6: lockdep warning: iprune_mutex at shrink_icache_memory+0x38/0x1a8, Alexander Beregalov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 5/6] always use struct xfs_btree_block instead of short / longform structures, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 3/6] cleanup maxrecs calculation, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 3/6] cleanup maxrecs calculation, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |