On 06.04.2011 01:20, Josef Bacik wrote: > We initialize almost all of the fields when we allocate an ordered extent, so > use kmalloc instead of kzalloc and just initialize the other fields that we > don't already initialize yet. Thanks,
Is it really worth it? we have seen a few bugs in the past resulting from uninitialized structure element, that even made it to disk. Using kzalloc makes maintenance much easier. -Arne > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> > --- > fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 4 +++- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c > index 083a554..2edc837 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c > @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ static int __btrfs_add_ordered_extent(struct inode > *inode, u64 file_offset, > struct btrfs_ordered_extent *entry; > > tree = &BTRFS_I(inode)->ordered_tree; > - entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_NOFS); > + entry = kmalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_NOFS); > if (!entry) > return -ENOMEM; > > @@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ static int __btrfs_add_ordered_extent(struct inode > *inode, u64 file_offset, > entry->bytes_left = len; > entry->inode = inode; > entry->compress_type = compress_type; > + entry->flags = 0; > if (type != BTRFS_ORDERED_IO_DONE && type != BTRFS_ORDERED_COMPLETE) > set_bit(type, &entry->flags); > > @@ -201,6 +202,7 @@ static int __btrfs_add_ordered_extent(struct inode > *inode, u64 file_offset, > init_waitqueue_head(&entry->wait); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->list); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->root_extent_list); > + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&entry->rb_node); > > spin_lock(&tree->lock); > node = tree_insert(&tree->tree, file_offset, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
