On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 04:31:44PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > -STATIC void xfs_ail_splice(struct xfs_ail *, struct list_head *, xfs_lsn_t);
> > -STATIC void xfs_ail_delete(struct xfs_ail *, xfs_log_item_t *);
> > -STATIC xfs_log_item_t * xfs_ail_min(struct xfs_ail *);
> > -STATIC xfs_log_item_t * xfs_ail_next(struct xfs_ail *, xfs_log_item_t *);
> > -
>
> Reordering and cleanup of unrelated existing functions should be in a
> separate patch.
OK.
>
> > @@ -55,16 +93,32 @@ xfs_lsn_t
> > xfs_trans_ail_tail(
> > struct xfs_ail *ailp)
> > {
> > - xfs_lsn_t lsn;
> > + xfs_lsn_t lsn = 0;
> > xfs_log_item_t *lip;
> >
> > spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> > lip = xfs_ail_min(ailp);
> > - if (lip == NULL) {
> > - lsn = (xfs_lsn_t)0;
> > - } else {
> > + if (lip)
> > + lsn = lip->li_lsn;
> > + spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> > +
> > + return lsn;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Return the maximum lsn held in the AIL, or zero if the AIl is empty.
> > + */
> > +static xfs_lsn_t
> > +xfs_ail_max_lsn(
> > + struct xfs_ail *ailp)
> > +{
> > + xfs_lsn_t lsn = 0;
> > + xfs_log_item_t *lip;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> > + lip = xfs_ail_max(ailp);
> > + if (lip)
>
> As this is the counterpart to xfs_trans_ail_tail the naming for both
> should be similar. I much prefer the descriptive _lsn naming over the
> random trans in xfs_trans_ail_tail.
Ok, will change.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
