[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 01/16] xfs: rearrange some code in xfs_bmap for better locali

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] xfs: rearrange some code in xfs_bmap for better locality
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:44:16 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1361755901-12453-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1361755901-12453-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1361755901-12453-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 02/24/13 19:31, Dave Chinner wrote:
From: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

xfs_bmap.c is a big file, and some of the related code is spread all
throughout the file requiring function prototypes for static
function and jumping all through the file to follow a single call
path. Rearrange the code so that:

        a) related functionality is grouped together; and
        b) functions are grouped in call dependency order

While the diffstat is large, there are no code changes in the patch;
it is just moving the functionality around and removing the function
prototypes at the top of the file. The resulting layout of the code
is as follows (top of file to bottom):

        - miscellaneous helper functions
        - extent tree block counting routines
        - debug/sanity checking code
        - bmap free list manipulation functions
        - inode fork format manipulation functions
        - internal/external extent tree seach functions
        - extent tree manipulation functions used during allocation
        - functions used during extent read/allocate/removal
          operations (i.e. xfs_bmapi_write, xfs_bmapi_read,
          xfs_bunmapi and xfs_getbmap)

This means that following logic paths through the bmapi code is much
simpler - most of the code relevant to a specific operation is now
clustered together rather than spread all over the file....

Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

Same as the previous post:


Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely

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