From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8GHRx4X026137 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:28:00 -0700 Received: from verein.lst.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D3DEC448F1F for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2kWR0FIC83IwCAvC for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:29:28 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cleanup maxrecs calculation Message-ID: <20080916172928.GA26187@lst.de> References: <20080915004648.GD12213@lst.de> <20080916053641.GV5811@disturbed> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080916053641.GV5811@disturbed> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:36:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 02:46:48AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > + mp->m_alloc_mxr[0] = xfs_allocbt_maxrecs(mp, sbp->sb_blocksize, 1); > > + mp->m_alloc_mxr[1] = xfs_allocbt_maxrecs(mp, sbp->sb_blocksize, 0); > > That's kind of strange - index 0 gets configured with a leaf (?) > value of 1, and index 1 with a value of 0. Can we change the order > of one of these so that the function and the variables match? > > Would a define for what the function parameter means make sense? > That way the code would document itself.... Yeah, probably should do this, currently the patch just keeps the calling conventions of the previous macros.