On Saturday 05 January 2008, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 04:46:05PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > Hmm, no. The driver is called ide-floppy (ide_floppy) and it is more
> > readable this way.
> >
> > > {
> > > idefloppy_t *floppy = drive->driver_data;
> > > struct gendisk *g = floppy->disk;
> > > @@ -1479,7 +1450,7 @@ static ide_proc_entry_t idefloppy_proc[] = {
> > > };
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_IDE_PROC_FS */
> > >
> > > -static int ide_floppy_probe(ide_drive_t *);
> > > +static int idefloppy_probe(ide_drive_t *);
> >
> > ditto
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -1733,7 +1704,7 @@ static struct block_device_operations idefloppy_ops = {
> > > .revalidate_disk= idefloppy_revalidate_disk
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static int ide_floppy_probe(ide_drive_t *drive)
> > > +static int idefloppy_probe(ide_drive_t *drive)
> >
> > ditto
> Shouldn't those also conform to the driver function format idefloppy_bla() -
> after all, those function names are unambiguous for the whole file...?
Why conform to something sub-optimal instead of changing it?
+ I was using ide_floppy_* in the new code to tag the areas that were
rewritten. Currently it doesn't look that optimistic since there are five
ide_floppy_* functions and fifty idefloppy_* ones but I'm hoping that this
statistics will improve after your patches. :)
Thanks,
Bart
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
