Re: [PATCH v4 08/10] nbd/server: introduce NBDExtentArray

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

27.02.2020 16:21, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 2/27/20 6:46 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > 26.02.2020 18:06, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > On 2/5/20 5:20 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > > > Introduce NBDExtentArray class, to handle extents list creation in more
> > > > controlled way and with fewer OUT parameters in functions.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden>
> > > > ---
> > > >   nbd/server.c | 210 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > > >   1 file changed, 118 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +/* Further modifications of the array after conversion are abandoned */
> > > > +static void nbd_extent_array_convert_to_be(NBDExtentArray *ea)
> > > > +{
> > > > +    int i;
> > > > +
> > > > +    assert(!ea->converted_to_be);
> > >
> > > Comment is stale - further modifications after conversion are a bug that aborts 
> > > the program, not abandoned.
> >
> > I always thought that "abandoned" is something that must not be done, so the 
> > word works here. But I don't know English well).
>
> Rephrasing my comment, further modifications are "a bug that aborts the program", rather 
> than "an ignored action that gets abandoned".
>
> > May be:
> >
> > "No further modifications of the array allowed after converting to BE."? 
>
> Yes, that wording is better.
>
> > Is it better?
> >
> > Or just drop the comment.
>
> That's also viable; the code reads fairly well even without the comment.

OK, let's just drop it.

--
Best regards,
Vladimir