From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4:Teach ext4_ext_split to caculate extents efficiently. Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 18:02:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20110525220233.GD9520@thunk.org> References: <1306143057-16962-1-git-send-email-xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com> <20110524210721.GD26055@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Yongqiang Yang Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:50804 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753241Ab1EYWCf (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 18:02:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:02:37AM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote: > path[i]p_idx is mutated to EXT_MAX_INDEX(path[i].p_hdr) + 1, it is > meaningless. ext4_ext_split() is used only by > ext4_ext_create_new_leaf() which drops the path after ext4_ext_split() > returns, so the path[i].p_idx is no longer used. > > I had tested the patch with fsx. I am not sure if this test is > enough. If you want more tests, I can do it. OK, thanks for the explanation. Sometimes testing doesn't find problems, so I try to understand the patch and make sure it is sane. I noticed that your path[i].p_ext and path[i].p_idx were no longer being updated with your patch; I was able to convince myself that p_ext didn't matter, but I wasn't entirely sure about p_idx, so that's why I asked you. I've added it to the ext4 dev tree. - Ted