From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] libext2fs: ext2fs_node_split Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 18:52:43 -0400 Message-ID: <20080517225243.GC16496@mit.edu> References: <1210875464-25552-1-git-send-email-sandeen@redhat.com> <1210875464-25552-2-git-send-email-sandeen@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:60164 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751509AbYEQWw7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 May 2008 18:52:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1210875464-25552-2-git-send-email-sandeen@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 01:17:42PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > When called for a given handle, this function will split the > current node such that half of the node's entries will be moved > to a new tree block. The parent will then be updated to point > to the (now smaller) original node as well as the new node. This patch looks good. One minor nit; if you're going to define new functions which are intended to be exported, then they need to be defined in the ext2fs.h header file --- otherwise, it should be declared static, to prevent function leakage. Should ext2fs_node_split() be exported? There doesn't seem to be any reason *not* to export it, but at the same time, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to export, either. I'd tend to keep it static for now; what do other people think? - Ted