xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 03/11] xfs: factor out xfs_dir2_leaf_find_stale

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] xfs: factor out xfs_dir2_leaf_find_stale
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:28:25 +1000
Cc: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110713071654.GA21252@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20110710204916.856267100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110710205017.293539533@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1310423573.7019.55.camel@doink> <20110713064936.GP23038@dastard> <20110713071654.GA21252@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 03:16:54AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 04:49:36PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > +            --*lowstale)
> > > > +               continue;
> > 
> > Only thing I was conerned about was the indenting on these loops.
> > Something like this:
> > 
> >     for (*lowstale = index - 1;
> >          *lowstale >= 0 &&
> >                     leaf->ents[*lowstale].address !=
> >                     cpu_to_be32(XFS_DIR2_NULL_DATAPTR);
> >          --*lowstale)
> >             continue;
> > 
> > means that at a glance it is easy to separate the loop control
> > statements from the body of the loop just by indentation.
> 
> I tried to avoid changing anything here, but now that other people
> like me hate these uglies I think I have to ite the bullet and
> actually untangle those loops.  The version below is what I'm submitting
> to testing now:

The new logic looks OK to me.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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