lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH 06/10] ide-floppy: report DMA handling in idefloppy_pc_intr() properly
Date
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 04:46:05PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > Hmm, no. The driver is called ide-floppy (ide_floppy) and it is more
> > readable this way.
> >
> > > {
> > > idefloppy_t *floppy = drive->driver_data;
> > > struct gendisk *g = floppy->disk;
> > > @@ -1479,7 +1450,7 @@ static ide_proc_entry_t idefloppy_proc[] = {
> > > };
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_IDE_PROC_FS */
> > >
> > > -static int ide_floppy_probe(ide_drive_t *);
> > > +static int idefloppy_probe(ide_drive_t *);
> >
> > ditto
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -1733,7 +1704,7 @@ static struct block_device_operations idefloppy_ops = {
> > > .revalidate_disk= idefloppy_revalidate_disk
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static int ide_floppy_probe(ide_drive_t *drive)
> > > +static int idefloppy_probe(ide_drive_t *drive)
> >
> > ditto
> Shouldn't those also conform to the driver function format idefloppy_bla() -
> after all, those function names are unambiguous for the whole file...?

Why conform to something sub-optimal instead of changing it?

+ I was using ide_floppy_* in the new code to tag the areas that were
rewritten. Currently it doesn't look that optimistic since there are five
ide_floppy_* functions and fifty idefloppy_* ones but I'm hoping that this
statistics will improve after your patches. :)

Thanks,
Bart


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-06 16:13    [W:0.077 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site