xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCHv2 9/10] xfs: a few more minor xfs_log_recover.c cleanups

To: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 9/10] xfs: a few more minor xfs_log_recover.c cleanups
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:09:04 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1271279952.3559.81.camel@doink>
References: <1270852266.7840.159.camel@doink> <20100412071131.GK2493@dastard> <1271279952.3559.81.camel@doink>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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 ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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