From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tao Ma Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:30:59 +0800 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix a refcount condition checking In-Reply-To: <20100205022332.GA3708@laptop.oracle.com> References: <201002041330.o145sMME005597@acsinet15.oracle.com> <4B6B6D45.30206@oracle.com> <20100205022332.GA3708@laptop.oracle.com> Message-ID: <4B6B82E3.4010209@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Wengang Wang wrote: > Hi Tao, > > On 10-02-05 08:58, Tao Ma wrote: >> Hi wengang, >> >> Wengang Wang wrote: >>> Hi Joel/Tao, >>> >>> I don't know the reflink very well, so please ignore this patch if I am wrong. >>> >>> I think in ocfs2_prepare_inode_for_write(), we disable DIO write if the inode >>> has reflink. >>> If am right, the way we determine if the inode has reflink is wrong in case >>> (!has_refcount && direct_io). >> I just check the caller, all these 2 parameters are either set or NULL >> simultaneously. You patch only make sense in (!has_refcount && >> direct_io), but currently we don't have such a case. So why bother >> adding redundant code for a not-exist case? > > Yes that current calling has no problem. But such interface has potential danger > for callers in future. > If you don't like change code, I think it's better to add comment that > has_refcount and direct_io must be both NULL or both non-NULL. Add it please as you wish. Regards, Tao