From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF63B1A0FFE for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:15:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: from e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (e23smtp04.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939821401EF for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:15:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:15:02 +1000 Received: from d23relay08.au.ibm.com (d23relay08.au.ibm.com [9.185.71.33]) by d23dlp02.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA242BB0040 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:15:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay08.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t62AEsKL38338744 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:15:02 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t62AEWRD031513 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:14:32 +1000 From: Nikunj A Dadhania To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, thuth@redhat.com, aik@ozlabs.ru, dvaleev@suse.com Subject: Re: [PATCH SLOF v3 3/5] disk-label: rename confusing "block" word In-Reply-To: <20150702100416.GA4392@gate.crashing.org> References: <1435662081-4293-1-git-send-email-nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1435662081-4293-4-git-send-email-nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150701073238.GA8068@gate.crashing.org> <876163f6uy.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150702100416.GA4392@gate.crashing.org> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 15:44:13 +0530 Message-ID: <87twtmeuiy.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Segher Boessenkool 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