From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA34C3A59F for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:42:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E192080F for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:42:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727860AbfH2Pmb (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:42:31 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.187]:3957 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727118AbfH2Pmb (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:42:31 -0400 Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4648CDBF252A50D01A48; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:42:25 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:42:24 +0800 Received: from architecture4 (10.140.130.215) by dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:42:24 +0800 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:41:37 +0800 From: Gao Xiang To: Christoph Hellwig CC: Alexander Viro , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , Theodore Ts'o , "Pavel Machek" , David Sterba , Amir Goldstein , "Darrick J . Wong" , "Dave Chinner" , Jaegeuk Kim , Jan Kara , Linus Torvalds , , , LKML , , Chao Yu , Miao Xie , Li Guifu , Fang Wei Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/24] erofs: add on-disk layout Message-ID: <20190829154136.GA129582@architecture4> References: <20190802125347.166018-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> <20190802125347.166018-2-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> <20190829095954.GB20598@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190829095954.GB20598@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Originating-IP: [10.140.130.215] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.99) To dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Hi Christoph, On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 02:59:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: [] > > > +static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode) > > +{ > > + if (datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION) > > + return true; > > + return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY; > > +} > > This looks like a really obsfucated way to write: > > return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION || > datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY; Add a word about this, the above approach is not horrible if more datamode add here and comments, e.g static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode) { /* has z_erofs_map_header */ if (datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION) return true; /* some blablabla */ if (datamode == (1) ) return true; /* some blablablabla */ if (datamode == (2) ) return true; /* no z_erofs_map_header */ return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY; } vs. static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode) { /* has z_erofs_map_header */ return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION || /* some blablabla */ datamode == (1) || /* some blablablabla */ datamode == (2) || /* no z_erofs_map_header */ datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY; } I have no idea which one is better. Anyway, if you still like the form, I will change it. Thanks, Gao Xiang