On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 16:52 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:29:23PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > Rename a label used in xlog_find_head() that I thought was poorly
> > chosen. Also combine two adjacent labels xlog_find_tail() into
> > a single label, and give it a more generic name.
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 83
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 20 +++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > Index: b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
. . .
> > @@ -757,7 +757,7 @@ xlog_find_head(
> > head_blk = new_blk;
> > }
> > - bad_blk:
> > +fine_tune:
> > /*
> > * Now we need to make sure head_blk is not pointing to a block in
> > * the middle of a log record.
> I don't think "fine_tune" really matches what is being done here
> either. "bad_blk" makes sense when you consider that the search is
> being terminated due to a log block being found that didn't match
> the search criteria. i.e. it is bad.
> What we are really doing there at "bad_blk" is validating the head
> block we have found, so if you are going to change the label then
> "validate_head" makes more sense to me...
My label came from the idea that at this point
we're refining the estimate of the head of the
log. But I like "validate_head" just as well.
(In my brain "bad_blk" suggests a media problem;
I care more about changing it than about what
it is changed to...)
If I switch it to use your proposed label, can
I get a "Reviewed-by"? (I won't bother re-posting
PS I'm still working on reorganizing this file
(including this function) some more, to kill
off a bunch of duplicated code.