On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > > I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give > is that I hate the name. To me, logfs implies a filesystem for > logging purposes, not for Flash hardware with wear leveling issues to > be taken into account. Yeah, well, ... Two years ago when I started all this, I was looking for a good name. All I could come up with sounded stupid, so I picked "LogFS" as a code name. As soon as I find a better name, the code name should get replaced. By now I still don't have anything better. All alternatives that were proposed are just as bad - with the added disadvantage of being new and not established yet. My hope of ever finding a better name is nearly zero. > Also, having scanned through the code, I find the name "cookie" using > in logfs_inode(), logfs_iput(), logfs_iget() to be badly named. It > should really be something like *cached_inode, which would seem to > give more natural semantics of > > if (cached_inode) > do_cached_inode_ops(...) > else > do_inode_ops(...) Half-agreed. For callers, the name "cookie" makes sense. It is a transparent thing they should not tough and hand back unchanged. For logfs_iget() and logfs_iput() something like "is_cached" would be better. Will change. Jörn -- Linux [...] existed just for discussion between people who wanted to show off how geeky they were. -- Rob Enderle - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
