On Mon, May 01 2017, Jens Axboe wrote: > 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? OK, will do. I have rebased and fixed up a couple of issues. Will repost shortly. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
