Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 07:37:14 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 linux-next] xfs: use swap() in
 xfs_dir2_leafn_rebalance()
Message-ID: <20150518213714.GV15721@dastard>
References: <1431969231-12834-1-git-send-email-fabf@skynet.be>
 <20150518171946.GY7232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <1618479490.17551.1431972373169.open-xchange@webmail.nmp.proximus.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1618479490.17551.1431972373169.open-xchange@webmail.nmp.proximus.be>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1902
Lines: 46

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:06:13PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 18 May 2015 at 19:19 Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:13:48PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> > >? ? ? * If the block order is wrong, swap the arguments.
> > >? ? ? */
> > > -? ?if ((swap = xfs_dir2_leafn_order(dp, blk1->bp, blk2->bp))) {
> > > -? ? ? ? ? ?xfs_da_state_blk_t? ? ? *tmp;? ?/* temp for block swap */
> > > +? ?swap = xfs_dir2_leafn_order(dp, blk1->bp, blk2->bp);
> > > +? ?if (swap)
> > > +? ? ? ? ? ?swap(blk1, blk2);
> >
> > Egads...? Have you even read what you'd written?? Yes, sure, preprocessor
> > will do the right thing, but it's a very noticable annoyance for somebody
> > reading that.? Rename the bleeding flag, please.
> 
> I wanted to focus on the swap() update in this small patchset (some other things
> should be done in there like have xfs_dir2_leafn_order() return bool) but I can
> rename it in something like need_swap. Do I need to resend the 4 patches Dave ?

4 patches is 3 patches too many for noise like this.  Anyway, two of
the patches have the same local "swap" variable problem; the context
is "swap order" not "need swap".

FWIW, I am not a fan of changing the code for no actual gain - the
compiled code is identical, there are no stack savings, and now I
have to look at an extra file to work out what the code does. If
you're changing the code and this is prep work for a large series,
then by all means clean the code up. But otherwise, changes like
this just mean work that other developers have in progress need
rebasing....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/