[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:06:11AM +0000, Michael van Elst wrote:
> >C hoosing code architectures
> 'Redesigning' things to fix bugs seems to be common sense
> nowadays, as if everything existing is always too bad to be
> Of course the same is valid for the redesigned code base in
> the future.
Yes, and after a dozen or so such ground-up rebuilds (provided each
one is informed by the lessons learned in the previous ones) things
start to reach a decent state.
> One interesting point is that dropping DEV_BSIZE doesn't
> really mean something new but a jump backwards. That's where
> we came from, that's what was 'redesigned' then.
But as you may have noticed, I'm not advocating going back to using
random mixtures of block sizes.
> >In this case, the problem with the way things are is that the way
> >things are does not work.
> It works fine for 16 years now. The problems only come from legacy
> code and code from other sources that wasn't adapted to the then
> valid design, mainly because the problems didn't show up immediately
> due to lack of hardware.
...that is, it works except when it doesn't. :-P
> The software that needs to be fixed is pretty obvious, it's
> not a large rototill but if you are into 'redesigning' you
> may see a lot of places (unrelated to DEV_BSIZE) that could
> be structured better and cleaned up, e.g. partition handling.
> And all this should be done, wether you intend to drop or
> keep DEV_BSIZE.
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |