We call btrfs_free_stale_device() only when we alloc a new
struct btrfs_device (ret=1), so move it closer to where we
alloc the new device. Also drop the comments.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 +---
1
We call btrfs_free_stale_device() only when we alloc a new
struct btrfs_device (ret=1), so move it closer to where we
alloc the new device. Also drop the comments.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 +---
1
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:13:09PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> We call btrfs_free_stale_device() only when we alloc a new
> struct btrfs_device (ret=1), so move it closer to where we
> alloc the new device. Also drop the comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Reviewed-by:
We call btrfs_free_stale_device() only when we alloc a new
struct btrfs_device (ret=1), so move it closer to where we
alloc the new device. Also drop the comments.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7
@@ -788,6 +788,7 @@ static noinline int device_list_add(const char *path,
nit: not directly related to the series in question, but I think you can
add one more patch which sinks the devid argument passed to
device_list_add. We already pass the disk_super and we can get the devid
in
On 15.12.2017 05:47, Anand Jain wrote:
> We call btrfs_free_stale_device() only when we alloc a new
> struct btrfs_device (ret=1), so move it closer to where we
> alloc the new device. Also drop the comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8
We call btrfs_free_stale_device() only when we alloc a new
struct btrfs_device (ret=1), so move it closer to where we
alloc the new device. Also drop the comments.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7