On 04/30/2017 11:00 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > 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. I generally tend to prefer tree wide cleanups to improve our APIs, even if it does cause an extra bit of pain. Would you mind doing that as a prep patch? -- Jens Axboe
