From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: add roundup_to_blocksize and bytes_to_blocks helper functions Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:52:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20090422145255.1e85253e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <49EB7087.70302@gmail.com> <20090422141035.efbb1540.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1240436400.7356.39.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: marcin.slusarz@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Kleikamp Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:55609 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752652AbZDVVzD (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:55:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1240436400.7356.39.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:40:00 -0500 Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 14:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > roundup_to_blocksize() isn't a terribly good name, IMO. The name > > conveys no sense of what the function returns. It _sounds_ like it > > returns a "block size". But it doesn't - it returns a loff_t. > > round_up_file_offset_to_block_size() is a bit long though :( > > Is round_up_to_block() any better? I don't think the trailing "size" > helps. dunno. If the function is documented and if its arg is a loff_t rather than a bare ull then I guess that makes things sufficiently clear that we don't have to fuss about its name too much.