Messages in this thread | | | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH 06/10] ide-floppy: report DMA handling in idefloppy_pc_intr() properly | Date | Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:21:53 +0100 |
| |
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
| |