On 05/09/2014 06:49 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 08:57:00PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
>> /me wonders if this
>>
>> if (ret >= 0) {
>> /* Add an item for the type for the first time */
>> eb = path->nodes[0];
>> slot = path->slots[0];
>> offset = btrfs_item_ptr_offset(eb, slot);
>> } else if (ret == -EEXIST) {
>> /*
>> * An item with that type already exists.
>> * Extend the item and store the new subid at the end.
>> */
>> btrfs_extend_item(uuid_root, path, sizeof(subid_le));
>> eb = path->nodes[0];
>> slot = path->slots[0];
>> offset = btrfs_item_ptr_offset(eb, slot);
>> offset += btrfs_item_size_nr(eb, slot) - sizeof(subid_le);
>> } else if (ret < 0) {
>> <-----------------
>> btrfs_warn(uuid_root->fs_info, "insert uuid item failed %d "
>> "(0x%016llx, 0x%016llx) type %u!",
>> ret, (unsigned long long)key.objectid,
>> (unsigned long long)key.offset, type);
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>>
>> shouldn't be condensed into just "} else {" ?
>
> It's equivalent to the original code, but is easier to read/understand.
> Do you have there other concerns besides readability?
>
Oh no, if it is intended and b/c it is not in a runtime critical path - no.
But what came into my mind, wouldn't the following avoid such question in
future ? :
} else {
/* ret < 0 */
--
Toralf
--
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
