Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:31:09AM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
>>> But then you start dereferencing the path bh list. That's
>>> breaks the abstraction of the path structure. It also drops the
>>> consistency of always using ocfs2_path_bh_journal_access() for paths.
>>> Conversely, there is no real loss to calling
>>> ocfs2_path_bh_journal_access(); the extra function call is
>>> insignificant.
>> fail enough. actually this piece of code make me think of the use of
>> ocfs2_journal_access_eb.
>> in ocfs2_rotate_subtree_left:
>> if (le16_to_cpu(right_leaf_el->l_next_free_rec) > 1) {
>> ret = ocfs2_journal_access_eb(handle, inode,
>> path_leaf_bh(right_path),
>> OCFS2_JOURNAL_ACCESS_WRITE);
>> So according to your policy, we should change it to
>> ocfs2_path_bh_journal_access also? ;)
>
> Nope, because it's not based on an index, it's using the
> path_leaf_bh() func. I know you were being humourous here ;-)
I am really somewhat stubborn here. :)
See ocfs2_rotate_rightmost_leaf_left. For leaf bh, you can use
ret = ocfs2_path_bh_journal_access(handle, inode, path,
path_num_items(path) - 1);
Not a big issue. So you can leave it here.
Regards,
Tao
_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
