On 12/13, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 05:22:41PM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > struct dnode_of_data dn;
> > > @@ -1484,11 +1483,7 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct
> > > f2fs_map_blocks *map,
> > > pgofs = (pgoff_t)map->m_lblk;
> > > end = pgofs + maxblocks;
> > >
> > > - if (!create && f2fs_lookup_extent_cache(inode, pgofs, &ei)) {
> > > - if (f2fs_lfs_mode(sbi) && flag == F2FS_GET_BLOCK_DIO &&
> >
> > Any reason to remove this condition?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > > - map->m_may_create)
>
> With "this condition" I guess you mean the:
>
> if (f2fs_lfs_mode(sbi) && flag == F2FS_GET_BLOCK_DIO &&
> map->m_may_create)
> goto next_dnode;
>
> ?
>
> Now that the !create check above is replaced with !map->m_may_create
> above, it is dead code, as the map->m_may_create part of the conditions
> must be false.
Ah, I missed it. Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
