lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/7] shared subtree
FromMiklos Szeredi <>
DateSun, 31 Jul 2005 10:25:39 +0200
> > Do you still believe that your idea is simpler? > > Well, you have bundled do_make_slave(), pnode_member_to_slave() and
> empty_pnode() all into one function.  I think your original split is
> quite nice.  If you'd split this function up like that, I think you'd
> agree, that the end result is simpler.
Also you can still use the pnode concept in naming functions and
explanations.  For example empty_pnode() is a good function name even
if there's no 'struct pnode'.  Pnodes still exist, they just don't
have a corresponding object.  

Miklos
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-07-31 10:30    [from the cache]
©2003-2008