On Mon, May 01 2017, Jens Axboe wrote:

> On 04/30/2017 11:00 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 24 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:51:01AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was following the existing practice exemplified by
>>>> bioset_create_nobvec().
>>>
>>> Which is pretty ugly to start with..
>> 
>> That is a matter of personal taste.
>> As such, it is up to the maintainer to change it if they want it
>> changed.
>> 
>>>
>>>> By not changing the signature of the function, I can avoid touching
>>>> quite a few places where it is called.
>>>
>>> There are 13 callers of bioset_create and one caller of
>>> bioset_create_nobvec, and your series touches many of those.
>>>
>>> So just adding a flags argument to bioset_create and passing
>>> BIOSET_NEED_BVECS and BIOSET_NEED_RESUER flags to it doesn't seem
>>> to much of an effort, and it's going to create a much nicer and easier
>>> to extend interface.
>> 
>> If someone else submitted a patch to discard bioset_create_nobvec in
>> favour of BIOSET_NEED_BVECS and got it accepted, then I would rebase my
>> series on that.  As it is, I'm basing my patches on the style currently
>> present in the tree.
>> 
>> Of course, if Jens says he'll only take my patches if I change to style
>> to match your preference, I'll do that.
>
> I generally tend to prefer tree wide cleanups to improve our APIs, even
> if it does cause an extra bit of pain. Would you mind doing that as a
> prep patch?

OK, will do.

I have rebased and fixed up a couple of issues.  Will repost shortly.

Thanks,
NeilBrown