From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: fs: jdb/jbd2: Put identical code in a common header Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:13:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20111027091330.GA31921@thunk.org> References: <20111018204031.GE4599@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Thomas Gleixner To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:33941 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754792Ab1J0JNf (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:13:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111018204031.GE4599@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:40:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 05-10-11 13:29:29, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > The state bits and the lock functions of jbd and jbd2 are > > identical. Share them. > Hum, Ted, I don't think this got picked up. What's your opinion? It seems reasonable to me. Factoring out common code is a good though, although inline functions won't save any text space and since this part of the jbd header files are rarely changed, so the maintainability advantages are reduced. I'll take the patch and include it in the ext4 tree. - Ted