From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o3F07DSv111164 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:07:13 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A0C972C34FA for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail13.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.98]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id NBQBwQz1nXQzBWWm for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:09:04 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 9/10] xfs: a few more minor xfs_log_recover.c cleanups Message-ID: <20100415000904.GN2493@dastard> References: <1270852266.7840.159.camel@doink> <20100412071131.GK2493@dastard> <1271279952.3559.81.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1271279952.3559.81.camel@doink> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Elder Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:19:12PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 17:11 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:31:06PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > > > - Add a more descriptive header comment for xlog_find_verify_cycle(). > > > > It just describes what the code does - I don't think it make the > > code any clearer and makes it more likely that if we ever change the > > code the comment will then be wrong... > > I still think the existing comments are confusing. What do you > think of this instead: > > /* > * Check that the range of blocks does not contain stop_on_cycle_no. > * Fill in *new_blk with the block offset where such block is found, > * or with -1 (an invalid block number) if there is no such block in > * the range. The scan needs to occur from front to back and the > * pointer into the region must be updated since a later routine will > * need to perform another test. > */ Yup, that's much better ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs