Re: State of nocow file attribute

[Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>]

On 08/21/2012 10:33 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:30:14PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
>> IMO the following is better, just make use of the original check.  If you agree with this,
>> I'll send it as a patch :)
> 
> I think it's cleaner to keep all flags that get inherited from the
> directory -> new file at one place, ie btrfs_inherit_iflags(), than
> having them scattered over the code.
> 
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> index 6e8f416..d4e58df 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> @@ -4721,8 +4721,10 @@ static struct inode *btrfs_new_inode(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>  		if (btrfs_test_opt(root, NODATASUM))
>>  			BTRFS_I(inode)->flags |= BTRFS_INODE_NODATASUM;
>>  		if (btrfs_test_opt(root, NODATACOW) ||
>> -		    (BTRFS_I(dir)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW))
>> +		    (BTRFS_I(dir)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW)) {
>>  			BTRFS_I(inode)->flags |= BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW;
>> +			BTRFS_I(inode)->flags |= BTRFS_INODE_NODATASUM;
>> +		}
>>  	}
> 
> And even better, this particular check of dir->flags should be removed
> entirely, because it duplicates the equivalent in
> btrfs_inherit_iflags().
> 

Fine, it's cleaner now.

thanks,
liubo

>>  
>>  	insert_inode_hash(inode);
> 
> 
> david
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>