Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
In message Pine.LNX.4.64.0808311810110.3747@axis700.grange you wrote:
It's not purely stylistic. For example, previously the code had fd and fdr, curdev and otherdev. It used one erase struct for both main and redundant copies, thus they had to initialise it multiple times to one or another version. I separated it into two erase_current and erase_target thus removing the need for multiple initialisation. I think, having
Ah! So there was a functional change (but - what was this needed for?), which esceaped me because it was buried across all those variable renamings.
dev_target, erase_target, fd_target vs. dev_current, erase_current and fd_current is also a readability improvement.
I reject this patch.
Please, reconsider.
I still reject it, at least as is. Whether you call the variables curdev and otherdev versus dev_current and dev_target makes no significant change to me, except that the new names are longer, more difficult to type and to read. And any functional changes become completely invisible among all the renaming. This makes such patches unacceptable to me.
It is important that you can actually SEE what a patch is changing. With your patches, this is not the case. You change everything, and the significant modifications become invisible.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk