Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > 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.
Sure, will resend dropping this patch. Regards, Nikunj _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
