From: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] Re: [git patches] ocfs2 update
Date: Thu Feb 7 13:38:46 2008 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080207213714.GR22671@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080207124745.4868e108.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:47:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:09:44 -0800
> Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > /*
> > - * dlm_register_domain: one-time setup per "domain"
> > + * Compare a requested locking protocol version against the current one.
> > + *
> > + * If the major numbers are different, they are incompatible.
> > + * If the current minor is greater than the request, they are incompatible.
> > + * If the current minor is less than or equal to the request, they are
> > + * compatible, and the requester should run at the current minor version.
> > + */
> > +static int dlm_protocol_compare(struct dlm_protocol_version *existing,
> > + struct dlm_protocol_version *request)
> > +{
> > + if (existing->pv_major != request->pv_major)
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + if (existing->pv_minor > request->pv_minor)
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + if (existing->pv_minor < request->pv_minor)
> > + request->pv_minor = existing->pv_minor;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
> It's somewhat obnoxious that what appears to be a straightforward
> compare-two-things-and-return-result function will actually modify one of
> the things which it is allegedly comparing.
Yeah, a better name would probably help with readability. Joel, how about
dlm_protocol_compare_and_set()?
> Please integrate checkpatch into your processes - this one had a few little
> glitches.
FWIW - I've run all patches through checkpatch.pl since your last review.
This one went through a couple cycles of checkpatch actually :) There's
three warnings that I get:
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
#70: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmapi.h:200:
+struct dlm_ctxt * dlm_register_domain(const char *domain, u32 key,
WARNING: line over 80 characters
#269: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c:813:
+
#&dlm->fs_locking_proto,
WARNING: line over 80 characters
#270: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c:814:
+
#&query->fs_proto)) {
total: 1 errors, 2 warnings, 569 lines checked
The "foo * bar" one is from existing code which got moved, and I felt that
leaving them unmodified was cleaner from a patch-reading perspective.
The over 80 characters warnings were ignored as the code seemed more
readable as-is.
I guess a lot of this can be subjective though, so I can be super strict if
you really feel it's necessary.
Thanks,
--Mark
--
Mark Fasheh
Principal Software Developer, Oracle
mark.fasheh@oracle.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [git patches] ocfs2 update
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:37:15 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080207213714.GR22671@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080207124745.4868e108.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:47:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:09:44 -0800
> Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > /*
> > - * dlm_register_domain: one-time setup per "domain"
> > + * Compare a requested locking protocol version against the current one.
> > + *
> > + * If the major numbers are different, they are incompatible.
> > + * If the current minor is greater than the request, they are incompatible.
> > + * If the current minor is less than or equal to the request, they are
> > + * compatible, and the requester should run at the current minor version.
> > + */
> > +static int dlm_protocol_compare(struct dlm_protocol_version *existing,
> > + struct dlm_protocol_version *request)
> > +{
> > + if (existing->pv_major != request->pv_major)
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + if (existing->pv_minor > request->pv_minor)
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + if (existing->pv_minor < request->pv_minor)
> > + request->pv_minor = existing->pv_minor;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
> It's somewhat obnoxious that what appears to be a straightforward
> compare-two-things-and-return-result function will actually modify one of
> the things which it is allegedly comparing.
Yeah, a better name would probably help with readability. Joel, how about
dlm_protocol_compare_and_set()?
> Please integrate checkpatch into your processes - this one had a few little
> glitches.
FWIW - I've run all patches through checkpatch.pl since your last review.
This one went through a couple cycles of checkpatch actually :) There's
three warnings that I get:
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
#70: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmapi.h:200:
+struct dlm_ctxt * dlm_register_domain(const char *domain, u32 key,
WARNING: line over 80 characters
#269: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c:813:
+
#&dlm->fs_locking_proto,
WARNING: line over 80 characters
#270: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c:814:
+
#&query->fs_proto)) {
total: 1 errors, 2 warnings, 569 lines checked
The "foo * bar" one is from existing code which got moved, and I felt that
leaving them unmodified was cleaner from a patch-reading perspective.
The over 80 characters warnings were ignored as the code seemed more
readable as-is.
I guess a lot of this can be subjective though, so I can be super strict if
you really feel it's necessary.
Thanks,
--Mark
--
Mark Fasheh
Principal Software Developer, Oracle
mark.fasheh@oracle.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-07 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-07 12:11 [Ocfs2-devel] [git patches] ocfs2 update Mark Fasheh
2008-02-07 20:09 ` Mark Fasheh
2008-02-07 20:47 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-07 20:48 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Andrew Morton
2008-02-07 13:38 ` Mark Fasheh [this message]
2008-02-07 21:37 ` Mark Fasheh
2008-02-07 14:29 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Joel Becker
2008-02-07 22:29 ` Joel Becker
2008-02-07 22:17 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-07 22:17 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080207213714.GR22671@ca-server1.us.oracle.com \
--to=mark.fasheh@oracle.com \
--cc=Joel.Becker@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.