>>>>> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and >>>>> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which >>>>> is beneficial for understanding. >> >>>> Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ... >> >>> Huh? Maybe we had different opinions about it, I thinks the essence of this word is 'sort' >>> So that reader can get the meaning of it easily. And in my mind, *_rb is more reasonable for rb_root ratherthan *_list for reader. >> >> Hi Sir? >> Should it be merged for the above reason? Hope for your reply, thanks. >No, the patch makes no sense. I agree with Bart that it doesn't make it any more readable, in fact it's worse. We have a sort and fifo list, the backing data structure isn't that exciting by itself. That is okay, thank you for your reply and respect both of you. -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> 发送时间: 2023年7月6日 22:05 收件人: 李培锋(wink) <lipeifeng@xxxxxxxx> 抄送: linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 张诗明(Simon Zhang) <zhangshiming@xxxxxxxx>; 郭健 <guojian@xxxxxxxx>; Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> 主题: Re: 回复: [PATCH] block: mq-deadline: rename sort_list to sort_rb On 7/6/23 3:27?AM, ???(wink) wrote: >>>> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and >>>> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which >>>> is beneficial for understanding. > >>> Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ... > >> Huh? Maybe we had different opinions about it, I thinks the essence of this word is 'sort' >> So that reader can get the meaning of it easily. And in my mind, *_rb is more reasonable for rb_root ratherthan *_list for reader. > > Hi Sir? > Should it be merged for the above reason? Hope for your reply, thanks. No, the patch makes no sense. I agree with Bart that it doesn't make it any more readable, in fact it's worse. We have a sort and fifo list, the backing data structure isn't that exciting by itself. -- Jens Axboe
