| 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 |
| Previous by Date: | The mankind supports ASEAN-Vietnam peace, democracy and development (gggg.yyyy.gggg), chongthamnhungchongbannuoc2521 |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix the ltp Makefile to allow for installation of all non-c (scripts) files, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 03/11] xfs: factor out xfs_dir2_leaf_find_stale, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 07/11] xfs: remove wrappers around b_iodone, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |