From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jbd2: fold __wait_cp_io into jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:00:01 -0400 Message-ID: <20140902170001.GI6232@thunk.org> References: <1409624051-6902-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1409624051-6902-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20140902163033.GC19412@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ext4 Developers List To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:33018 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751739AbaIBRAF (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:00:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140902163033.GC19412@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:30:33PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Hum, is this really such a win? Unlike __process_buffer(), this function > is well separated so IMHO the code is better readable before the folding. I agree it's a closer call. I'm not wedded to folding in __wait_cp_io. I was reacting more to the fact that the comment right before the call to __wait_cp_io was horribly misleading, and when I looked to confirm what I thought __wait_cp_io() was doing, it looked like another static function used in exactly one place that could be folded in. If other folks think that it's more readable w/o this patch, I'm happy to drop it. Anyone else have an opinion? Cheers, - Ted