On Mon, Apr 24 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:51:01AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >> >> I was following the existing practice exemplified by >> bioset_create_nobvec(). > > Which is pretty ugly to start with.. That is a matter of personal taste. As such, it is up to the maintainer to change it if they want it changed. > >> By not changing the signature of the function, I can avoid touching >> quite a few places where it is called. > > There are 13 callers of bioset_create and one caller of > bioset_create_nobvec, and your series touches many of those. > > So just adding a flags argument to bioset_create and passing > BIOSET_NEED_BVECS and BIOSET_NEED_RESUER flags to it doesn't seem > to much of an effort, and it's going to create a much nicer and easier > to extend interface. If someone else submitted a patch to discard bioset_create_nobvec in favour of BIOSET_NEED_BVECS and got it accepted, then I would rebase my series on that. As it is, I'm basing my patches on the style currently present in the tree. Of course, if Jens says he'll only take my patches if I change to style to match your preference, I'll do that. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
