On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:30:14PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> IMO the following is better, just make use of the original check. If you
> agree with this,
> I'll send it as a patch :)
I think it's cleaner to keep all flags that get inherited from the
directory -> new file at one place, ie btrfs_inherit_iflags(), than
having them scattered over the code.
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index 6e8f416..d4e58df 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@ -4721,8 +4721,10 @@ static struct inode *btrfs_new_inode(struct
> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> if (btrfs_test_opt(root, NODATASUM))
> BTRFS_I(inode)->flags |= BTRFS_INODE_NODATASUM;
> if (btrfs_test_opt(root, NODATACOW) ||
> - (BTRFS_I(dir)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW))
> + (BTRFS_I(dir)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW)) {
> BTRFS_I(inode)->flags |= BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW;
> + BTRFS_I(inode)->flags |= BTRFS_INODE_NODATASUM;
> + }
> }
And even better, this particular check of dir->flags should be removed
entirely, because it duplicates the equivalent in
btrfs_inherit_iflags().
>
> insert_inode_hash(inode);
david
--
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
