Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:40 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> * So I hate it that the READ32/WRITE32 is open coded. Now it looks like nothing, it
>> should have an xdr_encode/decode naming convention, all details hidden, consistent calling
>> convention with the reset of the code.
>
> The convention is already established. Please see 15 years worth of
> NFSv2/v3 xdr code. The NFSv4 code was the exception not the rule.
>
> Now, it is obvious what we're doing: we're writing 32-bit big endian
> encoded data into a memory buffer. Furthermore, the process of
> converting from cpu ordered integers into 32-bit big endian is now made
> obvious, making it easily verifiable both by inspection, and using
> 'sparse'.
> Adding wrappers to do this, is just unnecessarily obfuscating the code.
>
>> * I hate it that I have to count (p)"++" now to look for actual code advancements.
>
> How is that _any_ different from counting WRITE32s?
>
>> * I hate that it is called encode_hyper that a dum like me needs to look it up in the dictionary
>> "32" and "64" will do
>
> I don't mind changing the name of xdr_encode_hyper() to
> xdr_encode_uint64 or some such alternative, however the point is that we
> should have only _one_ function that encodes 64 bit integers. Not one
> function that everyone else uses, and then a macro that NFSv4 uses.
>
It seems to me that xdr_encode_hyper() is good because it matches
the XDR specification, which called 64 bit integer values, "hyper".
ps
>> * I hated it before, but I hate it even more now that the same operation is:
>> reserved(4); p + 1
>
> Huh? What operation?
>
>> I wish it could be all __be32 everywhere
>
> ??? That's up to the protocol. If the protocol uses 32-bit integers,
> then we can use __be32, but if it specifies a 64-bit big endian integer
> in some structure, then we need to encode for that.
>