On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 11:17:49AM +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: > >> "block" word is not a block number, actually its an allocated host > >> address. Rename it to disk-buf along with a associated > >> size(disk-buf-size=4096) for using during allocation/free. > >> > >> Also renaming the helper routine read-sector to read-disk-buf. This > >> routine assumes the address to be disk-buf and only takes sector number > >> as argument. > > > > This isn't what I suggested, and I think it is a terrible idea. > > The comment was against the "has-fat-filesystem". As the complete > disk-label.fs had that same assumption, I went ahead and renamed "block" > across the file.
No, I said that "block" in that stack comment was misleading. Nothing more. Since the word "block" is used all over the file (as your patch size shows), a short name is much better than a longer name, esp. if that shorter name actually is more expressive. Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
