On Wed 17 Jan 2018 12:00:59 AM CET, Eric Blake wrote: >> - l2_table = NULL; >> + l2_slice = NULL; >> l1_table = NULL; >> l1_size2 = l1_size * sizeof(uint64_t); >> >> + slice_size = s->l2_slice_size * sizeof(uint64_t); > > Again, better naming on s->l2_slice_size in an earlier patch may make > this more readable, at a cost of slight rebase churn.
Another approach would be to use _size2 to refer to size in bytes, after checking the code a bit that seems to be the convention in other places where we're dealing with both table lenghts and sizes in bytes. > The diff looks hideous, but that's thanks to indentation changes. Right, that's why I suggested to use 'diff -w' in the cover letter to help see the changes better. Berto
