On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:42:48 +0200 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> No. I do not want a loop to calculate the size here. This is ugly. > >> I have this information, and I just lost it do to BAD API. > > > > IMO, being ugly is better than confusing people. > > Come on man. Ugly was an understatement. Can't you see? > Make a loop for information we have and decided to drop on the floor. Honestly, I can't see. Whatever you call the patch, the current API is worse than it for me. > > Do you think that the current API is good, which make developers > > always wrongly use it and feel that they have to ask how to use and > > add comments about necessary tricks to use it? > > > > No I think (and said) that the API is crap. But not that bad that I want to > take the effort and change it. > > > > >> Since we do not want to change all users of blk_end_request. (We should, > >> but we are too lazy. I'm). Then please just let blk_end_bidi_request() > >> be. Confused users will be corrected. > > > > No. blk_end_bidi_request interface and the name is confusing. So > > forcing everyone to use blk_end_bidi_request doesn't help. > > > > We should rename blk_end_bidi_request => blk_end_request() and > change all users to add an extra 0, and the original blk_end_request() > should be dropped. That might be better than the current situation but why do we need bidi_bytes (number of bytes to complete for bidi) in blk_end_request? Having bidi_bytes is theoretically correct but we always must complete all the bytes with bidi. Do you say that someone might need it in the future? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
