| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 6/3] xfs: make largest supported offset less shouty |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:11:24 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20120429215830.GQ19889@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1335519922-14371-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120429125729.GU9541@dastard> <20120429215830.GQ19889@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 05:58:30PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:57:29PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > XFS_MAXIOFFSET() is just a simple macro that resolves to > > mp->m_maxioffset. It doesn't need to exist, and it just makes the > > code unnecessarily loud and shouty. > > > > Make it quiet and easy to read. > > Do we actually need to keep around a value in our superblock? > s_maxbytes in the VFS superblock already does this, and it seems like > at least our checks in the read path are superflous. Ah, we do indeed keep the same value in s_maxbytes - that's one step removed from m_maxioffset because it uses the same function to calculate it, and they are done a long way apart. Ok, it looks like I've got a couple more patches to write to finish off this cleanup. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 29/37 V3] xfs: move busy extent handling to it's own file, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 03/18] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 6/3] xfs: make largest supported offset less shouty, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 6/3] xfs: make largest supported offset less shouty, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |