From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] btrfs-progs: backref: add list_first_pref helper
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:25:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <90a21da3-6c0f-50cc-a95f-d05ed1a9f05e@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf9d2dae-4291-2dad-9101-f5fb18215699@suse.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1293 bytes --]
On 7/26/17 9:22 AM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 7/26/17 3:08 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25.07.2017 23:51, jeffm@suse.com wrote:
>>> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> backref.c | 11 +++++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/backref.c b/backref.c
>>> index ac1b506..be3376a 100644
>>> --- a/backref.c
>>> +++ b/backref.c
>>> @@ -130,6 +130,11 @@ struct __prelim_ref {
>>> u64 wanted_disk_byte;
>>> };
>>>
>>> +static struct __prelim_ref *list_first_pref(struct list_head *head)
>>> +{
>>> + return list_first_entry(head, struct __prelim_ref, list);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> I think this just adds one more level of abstraction with no real
>> benefit whatsoever. Why not drop the patch entirely.
>
> Ack. I thought it might be more readable but it ends up taking the same
> number of characters.
Actually, no, it doesn't. That's only true if using 'head' as the list head
as in the helper.
It ends up being
ref = list_first_pref(&prefstate->pending_missing_keys);
vs
ref = list_first_entry(&prefstate->pending_missing_keys,
struct __prelim_ref, list);
and I have to say I prefer reading the former.
-Jeff
--
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-26 13:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-25 20:51 [PATCH 1/7] btrfs-progs: check: supplement extent backref list with rbtree jeffm
2017-07-25 20:51 ` [PATCH 2/7] btrfs-progs: check: switch to iterating over the backref_tree jeffm
2017-07-25 20:51 ` [PATCH 3/7] btrfs-progs: extent-cache: actually cache extent buffers jeffm
2017-07-26 7:00 ` Nikolay Borisov
2017-07-26 13:21 ` Jeff Mahoney
2017-08-22 15:44 ` David Sterba
2017-07-25 20:51 ` [PATCH 4/7] btrfs-progs: backref: push state tracking into a helper structure jeffm
2017-07-25 20:51 ` [PATCH 5/7] btrfs-progs: backref: add list_first_pref helper jeffm
2017-07-26 7:08 ` Nikolay Borisov
2017-07-26 13:22 ` Jeff Mahoney
2017-07-26 13:25 ` Jeff Mahoney [this message]
2017-07-25 20:51 ` [PATCH 6/7] btrfs-progs: backref: use separate list for missing keys jeffm
2017-07-25 20:51 ` [PATCH 7/7] btrfs-progs: backref: use separate list for indirect refs jeffm
2017-09-29 17:21 ` [PATCH 1/7] btrfs-progs: check: supplement extent backref list with rbtree David Sterba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=90a21da3-6c0f-50cc-a95f-d05ed1a9f05e@suse.com \
--to=jeffm@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nborisov@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).