On 21/02/2019 14:25, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 21.02.19 г. 15:15 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>> On 21/02/2019 12:57, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>
>>> static int cow_file_range_async(struct inode *inode, struct page
>>> *locked_page,
>>> @@ -1190,45 +1201,68 @@ static int cow_file_range_async(struct inode
>>> *inode, struct page *locked_page,
>>> unsigned int write_flags)
>>> {
>>> struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = btrfs_sb(inode->i_sb);
>>> - struct async_cow *async_cow;
>>> + struct async_cow *ctx;
>>> + struct async_chunk *async_cow;
>>
>> In case you have to re-send the patch you could maybe rename the
>> async_cow variable to async_chunk or sth like that. Would make the
>> resulting code a little bit clearer but no strong opinions here.
>
> The reason I left it like that is to minimize the resulting diff.
Understood, but now we have a 'ctx' of type 'struct async_cow' and a
'*async_cow' of type 'struct asyn_chunk'. This is the type of code that
will make people go WTF when they read it in 3-4 cycles.
--
Johannes Thumshirn SUSE Labs Filesystems
[email protected] +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
