Re: [PATCH 05/11] ext4: remove ext4_end_io()

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

I ended up dropping this patch since it doesn't make any difference to
the generated code (gcc will take a static function which is only used
in one place, and inline it) and it makes a bit more understandable to
have ext4_end_io() as a separate function.

> > +               /* Wake up anyone waiting on unwritten extent conversion */
> > +               if (atomic_dec_and_test(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_unwritten))
> > +                       wake_up_all(ext4_ioend_wq(io->inode));
> 
> Should we use "inode" instead of "io->inode"?

I agree it would be a bit cleaner/more readable, but again it won't
make a difference to the generated assembly, and while we oculd do
this in the original code in ext4_end_io(), I'm trying to put this
patch series to bed so I can push it to Linus, and since we're now not
touching the code, it's not worth it to clean this up now.  We can
take of this later....

						- Ted