xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

PARTIAL TAKE 970925 - Factor xfs_itobp() and xfs_inotobp()

To: sgi.bugs.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: PARTIAL TAKE 970925 - Factor xfs_itobp() and xfs_inotobp()
From: dgc@xxxxxxx (David Chinner)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:53:30 +1100 (EST)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Factor xfs_itobp() and xfs_inotobp().

The only difference between the functions is one passes an
inode for the lookup, the other passes an inode number.
However, they don't do the same validity checking or set
all the same state on the buffer that is returned yet
they should.

Factor the functions into a common implementation.


Date:  Fri Feb 15 17:53:02 AEDT 2008
Workarea:  chook.melbourne.sgi.com:/build/dgc/isms/2.6.x-xfs
Inspected by:  lachlan@xxxxxxx

The following file(s) were checked into:
  longdrop.melbourne.sgi.com:/isms/linux/2.6.x-xfs-melb


Modid:  xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:30500a
fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c - 1.491 - changed
http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/xfs-linux/xfs_inode.c.diff?r1=text&tr1=1.491&r2=text&tr2=1.490&f=h
        - Factor xfs_itobp() and xfs_inotobp() to use a common
          implementation.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • PARTIAL TAKE 970925 - Factor xfs_itobp() and xfs_inotobp(), David Chinner <=