On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 05:01:36PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > This time I just scanned most of the change, since it appears > it's almost the same except for the (renamed) xfs_alloc_busy_trim() > function. Yes. > It looks correct now, but I have a few things for you > to consider. I'll wait for your response in case you want to > change anything. After that I'll pull in the three patches > (probably tomorrow). For now please just pull the first two. There's a fair chance number three will change based on how the discard work goes. > I agree that the notation (from Dave) that you use here > is very helpful in visualizing what's going on. But > the underlying code is pretty simple, and it gets somewhat > lost in the comments I think. I therefore would kind of > prefer to have the explanation moved up above the function. > It clearly labels the cases being treated, and references > to those can be put in the code, below. > > (This is a style thing, so if you feel strongly that it's > better as you have it, so be it.) I tried that before, but matching the cases to numbers in comments wasn't very readable so I switch to this notation. > All the nice diagrams refer to the variable "fbno" > and "fend" using "bno" and "end. I think you should > either drop the "f" in the variables or add it to > the comments. Indeed. I did a last minute cleanup to consolidate the duplicate variables and didn't update the comments. > (Something like that anyway, I just wanted to provide > an example rather than just saying "it's wrong.") Ok. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
