| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 14/25] xfs: remove xfs_bmap_add_extent |
| From: | Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:55:49 -0500 |
| Cc: | <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20110824060643.401685261@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20110824060428.789245205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110824060643.401685261@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | <aelder@xxxxxxx> |
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 02:04 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> plain text document attachment (xfs-bmapi-split-xfs_bmap_extent-2)
> There is no real need to the xfs_bmap_add_extent, as the callers know what
> kind of extents they need to it. Removing it means duplicating the
> extents to btree conversion logic in three places, but overall it's still
> a lot less, and much simpler code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Not really a *lot* less code, but it is an improvement.
Simple question below (coding style) but this looks good.
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
. . .
>
> +#ifdef DEBUG
> +STATIC void
> +xfs_bmap_check_leaf_extents(
> + struct xfs_btree_cur *cur,
> + struct xfs_inode *ip,
> + int whichfork);
> +#else
> +#define xfs_bmap_check_leaf_extents(cur, ip, whichfork) do { }
> while (0)
> +#endif
Why do you use "do {} while (0)" rather than just an empty right
hand side?
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS metadata flushing design - current and future, Stewart Smith |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 15/25] xfs: pass bmalloca structure to xfs_bmap_isaeof, Alex Elder |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS metadata flushing design - current and future, Stewart Smith |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 14/25] xfs: remove xfs_bmap_add_extent, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |