On 05/17/2012 04:38 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:34:42PM +0800, Liu Yuan wrote: >> > On 05/17/2012 04:14 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> > >>> > > Assuming some arguments come from sys while the epoch is passed is a bad >>> > > convention. In addition the next patch will add a caller that doesn't >>> > > take the nodes array from sys. >> > >> > >> > Seems that all the caller of update_epoch_log() pass sys->xxx, so how >> > about refactor it as update_epoch_log(void) ? > This will change in the next patch. Do you mean 2/2 or future patch? If the latter, I'd think we'd better change the patch in place instead of yet another patch to patch the previous one's fault. Or I misread it? Thanks, Yuan |