xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [PATCH 03/14] repair: kill B_IS_META flag

To: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 03/14] repair: kill B_IS_META flag
From: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:38:01 -0500
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4AD4FCDD.1060602@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AcpMVijRcEDTJdbEQ3WuQAEK6DBj5gAB/zZA
Thread-topic: [PATCH 03/14] repair: kill B_IS_META flag
On , Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 02:45:08PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> 
>>>> B_IS_META is the inverse flag of B_IS_INODE which is not really obvious
>>>> from it's use.  So just use !B_IS_INODE to make it more clear.
>>>> 
>>> Logic-wise it's fine, but is this change really helpful?   The comment says:
>>> 
>>> /*
>>> * Test if bit 0 or 2 is set in the "priority tag" of the buffer to see if
>>> * the buffer is for an inode or other metadata.
>>> */
>>> 
>>> so basically it distinguishes inodes from other metadata right.
>> 
>> Yes, with the key on other.  In my books inodes are meta-data.
>> 
>>> B_IS_INODE is clear; B_IS_META is pretty clear, "!B_IS_INODE" seems muddy; 
>>> so
>>> very many things are "not inodes" :)
>> 
>> In a buffercache (and in fact a whole application) that only deals with
>> metadata at all !B_IS_INODE meaning other metadata seems a lot more clear to 
>> me than B_IS_META.
>> 
> 
> Ok, I'm fine with that I suppose.

Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>