On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:33:32AM +0100, Stefan Behrens wrote:
> > +struct btrfs_work_struct {
> > + void (*func)(struct btrfs_work_struct *arg);
> > + void (*ordered_func)(struct btrfs_work_struct *arg);
> > + void (*ordered_free)(struct btrfs_work_struct *arg);
> > +
> > + /* Don't touch things below */
> > + struct work_struct normal_work;
> > + struct work_struct ordered_work;
> > + struct completion normal_completion;
> > +};
>
> If you compare the Btrfs sources before applying your patchset and after
> applying all 17 patches, one change is this:
> -struct btrfs_work {
> +struct btrfs_work_struct {
>
> Which causes changes s/struct btrfs_work/struct btrfs_work_struct/ like
> in patch 16/17:
> - struct btrfs_work work;
> + struct btrfs_work_struct
> + work;
>
> -static void scrub_bio_end_io_worker(struct btrfs_work *work);
> +static void scrub_bio_end_io_worker(struct btrfs_work_struct *work);
>
> I just don't see any good reason for renaming 'struct foo' to 'struct
> foo_struct'.
It seems to be meaningfull only though out this patchset. The old
contents of btrfs_work is different from btrfs_work_struct, I agree it's
right to have the name without _struct suffix. But then the change to
new worker structs would have to be done in one single patch, while
there are 10+ patches converting each worker type.
I suggest to add one more patch to the end that removes the _struct
suffix again, so the series does not have to be redone.
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
