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