| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 13/21] implement generic xfs_btree_update |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:46:24 +0200 |
| In-reply-to: | <20080730052959.GN13395@disturbed> |
| References: | <20080729193116.GN19104@lst.de> <20080730052959.GN13395@disturbed> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 03:29:59PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Oh, it's be moved inside the update code itself. So, why always call > the update function and then check the ptr? Why not the way it was > originally done? Because all three callers do different checks, and I could not proof that they are either identical or hamrless for the other cases. We can clean this mess up later in small standalone patches. > > + /* updated last record information */ > > + void (*update_lastrec)(struct xfs_btree_cur *, > > + struct xfs_btree_block *, > > + union xfs_btree_rec *, int, int); > > Can you add the variable names to the prototype parameters? Done. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 12/21] implement generic xfs_btree_updkey, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 14/21] add get_maxrecs btree operation, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 12/21] implement generic xfs_btree_updkey, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 13/21] implement generic xfs_btree_update, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |