On 08/17/2009 03:47 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:40 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> * So I hate it that the READ32/WRITE32 is open coded. Now it looks like nothing, it >> should have an xdr_encode/decode naming convention, all details hidden, consistent calling >> convention with the reset of the code. > > The convention is already established. Please see 15 years worth of > NFSv2/v3 xdr code. The NFSv4 code was the exception not the rule. > > Now, it is obvious what we're doing: we're writing 32-bit big endian > encoded data into a memory buffer. Furthermore, the process of > converting from cpu ordered integers into 32-bit big endian is now made > obvious, making it easily verifiable both by inspection, and using > 'sparse'. > Adding wrappers to do this, is just unnecessarily obfuscating the code. > As I said, *sometimes* "obfuscation" is the point. If it has merits to account for human short concentration span. >> * I hate it that I have to count (p)"++" now to look for actual code advancements. > > How is that _any_ different from counting WRITE32s? > The size for one. And mainly the symmetry with the other side of the wire. WRITEXX for every READXX. What now? >> * I hate that it is called encode_hyper that a dum like me needs to look it up in the dictionary >> "32" and "64" will do > > I don't mind changing the name of xdr_encode_hyper() to > xdr_encode_uint64 or some such alternative, however the point is that we > should have only _one_ function that encodes 64 bit integers. Not one > function that everyone else uses, and then a macro that NFSv4 uses. > >> * I hated it before, but I hate it even more now that the same operation is: >> reserved(4); p + 1 > > Huh? What operation? > Sorry, I meant the mix use of byte_sizes and word_sizes. For example I'd like reserved(1); p + 1; and reserved(quad_len(len)); p + quad_len(len); I see a pattern here. Highly changing code devises these "helpers", that enables reviewing, for catching bugs. Then once stabilized, code is "un-obfuscated" and becomes "write-only". Who cares, no one needs to read-it, it works. I don't want to raise any flame wars here. I come late and I see what I see. Probably 2, 3 iterations into this I will become blind to this code as well. I guess current code is fine. How hard can it be, so I spend an hour longer on a missing "++". New NFS versions are written every 10 years. Only one request though. Please make nfs and nfsd use the same xdr mechanics Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
