On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:37:01AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:13:29PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > > Something like below ? . I will send a final patch once I get the > > patchqueu updated. I am not able to reach repo.or.cz currently. > > This is better, but it still means that we are exporting a large > number of functions to the callers. It's not clear to me we need so > many different variants of ext4_new_blocks_* --- what is their > justification to exist? > > For example, why not just have: > > static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_new_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, > ext4_lblk_t iblock, ext4_fsblk_t goal, > unsigned long *count, int *errp, int meta) > Now that we have moved all the code to do_blk_alloc, we can be assured that we won't miss bug fixes to those allocation APIs when fixing one of them. IMHO having separate APIs reduces the risk of misusing them -aneesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
