On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
quoted text
> 
> I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give
> is that I hate the name.  To me, logfs implies a filesystem for
> logging purposes, not for Flash hardware with wear leveling issues to
> be taken into account.

Yeah, well, ...

Two years ago when I started all this, I was looking for a good name.
All I could come up with sounded stupid, so I picked "LogFS" as a code
name.  As soon as I find a better name, the code name should get
replaced.

By now I still don't have anything better.  All alternatives that were
proposed are just as bad - with the added disadvantage of being new and
not established yet.  My hope of ever finding a better name is nearly
zero.

quoted text
> Also, having scanned through the code, I find the name "cookie" using
> in logfs_inode(), logfs_iput(), logfs_iget() to be badly named.  It
> should really be something like *cached_inode, which would seem to
> give more natural semantics of
> 
> 	if (cached_inode)
> 		do_cached_inode_ops(...)
> 	else
> 		do_inode_ops(...)

Half-agreed.  For callers, the name "cookie" makes sense.  It is a
transparent thing they should not tough and hand back unchanged.  For
logfs_iget() and logfs_iput() something like "is_cached" would be
better.

Will change.

Jörn

-- 
Linux [...] existed just for discussion between people who wanted
to show off how geeky they were.
-- Rob Enderle
-
unsubscribe notice
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/