On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:19:12PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 17:11 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:31:06PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > - Add a more descriptive header comment for xlog_find_verify_cycle().
> > It just describes what the code does - I don't think it make the
> > code any clearer and makes it more likely that if we ever change the
> > code the comment will then be wrong...
> I still think the existing comments are confusing. What do you
> think of this instead:
> * Check that the range of blocks does not contain stop_on_cycle_no.
> * Fill in *new_blk with the block offset where such block is found,
> * or with -1 (an invalid block number) if there is no such block in
> * the range. The scan needs to occur from front to back and the
> * pointer into the region must be updated since a later routine will
> * need to perform another test.
Yup, that's much better ;)