Re: [PATCH 06/16] reftable/block: rename `block` to `block_data`

> 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@pks.im>
> > ---
> >  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.