On 08/21/2012 10:33 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> 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().
>
Fine, it's cleaner now.
thanks,
liubo
>>
>> 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
>
--
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
