On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
>
> I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give
> is that I hate the name. To me, logfs implies a filesystem for
> logging purposes, not for Flash hardware with wear leveling issues to
> be taken into account.
Yeah, well, ...
Two years ago when I started all this, I was looking for a good name.
All I could come up with sounded stupid, so I picked "LogFS" as a code
name. As soon as I find a better name, the code name should get
replaced.
By now I still don't have anything better. All alternatives that were
proposed are just as bad - with the added disadvantage of being new and
not established yet. My hope of ever finding a better name is nearly
zero.
> Also, having scanned through the code, I find the name "cookie" using
> in logfs_inode(), logfs_iput(), logfs_iget() to be badly named. It
> should really be something like *cached_inode, which would seem to
> give more natural semantics of
>
> if (cached_inode)
> do_cached_inode_ops(...)
> else
> do_inode_ops(...)
Half-agreed. For callers, the name "cookie" makes sense. It is a
transparent thing they should not tough and hand back unchanged. For
logfs_iget() and logfs_iput() something like "is_cached" would be
better.
Will change.
Jörn
--
Linux [...] existed just for discussion between people who wanted
to show off how geeky they were.
-- Rob Enderle
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
