From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k93NOTaG024237 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:24:30 -0700 Received: from prod.aconex.com (mail.app.aconex.com [203.89.192.138]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 28482D17A48E for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 15:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Review: clean up inode i_flags handling From: Nathan Scott Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com In-Reply-To: <20061003051325.GR4695059@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20061003051325.GR4695059@melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:26:13 +1000 Message-Id: <1159914373.32536.9.camel@edge> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:13 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > This part seems like overkill, I'd just do that inline like the clear variant, since its just one instruction ... +static inline void +__xfs_iflags_set(xfs_inode_t *ip, unsigned short flags) +{ + ip->i_flags |= flags; +} Oh, ditto for the test inline func, I guess. cheers. -- Nathan