On 25/03/31 10:41AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> The `reftable_block` structure associates a byte slice with a block
> source. As such it only holds the data of a reftable block without
> actually encoding any of the details for how to access that data.
>
> Rename the structure to instead be called `reftable_block_data`. Besides
> clarifying that this really only holds data, it also allows us to rename
> the `reftable_block_reader` to `reftable_block` in the next commit, as
> this is the structure that actually encapsulates access to the reftable
> blocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
> ---
> reftable/block.c | 10 ++++-----
> reftable/block.h | 2 +-
> reftable/blocksource.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> reftable/blocksource.h | 10 ++++-----
> reftable/iter.c | 4 ++--
> reftable/reftable-blocksource.h | 14 ++++++------
> reftable/table.c | 14 ++++++------
> t/unit-tests/t-reftable-readwrite.c | 10 ++++-----
> 8 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
[snip]
> diff --git a/reftable/block.h b/reftable/block.h
> index 6afb1b2952a..c55d47c3c52 100644
> --- a/reftable/block.h
> +++ b/reftable/block.h
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ struct block_reader {
> uint32_t header_off;
>
> /* the memory block */
> - struct reftable_block block;
> + struct reftable_block_data block;
I wonder if we should rename the `reftable_block_data` here from `block`
to `data`. In the next commit we rename `block_reader` to `block` which
leads to `block->block` in some places which I think looks a bit funny.
-Justin
