On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:33:48AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Instead of using @sign to determine whether we're adding or subtracting. > Even it only has 3 callers, it's still (and in fact already caused > problem in the past) confusing to use. > > Refactor add_pinned_bytes() to add_pinned_bytes() and sub_pinned_bytes() > to explicitly show what we're doing. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]> > --- > To David, > > Would you please fold this patch to "btrfs: extent-tree: Fix a bug that > btrfs is unable to add pinned bytes" in misc-next branch?
Folding a refactoring patch to a fix is not a good practice, I had a second thought on that and let's have both patches. The fix will go to 5.2-rc and this cleanup will show up in the devel queue once the fix is merged. And the cleanup looks good to me, thanks. Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
