From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p89Ntr1c066526 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:55:53 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/25] xfs: remove xfs_bmap_add_extent From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20110824060643.401685261@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20110824060428.789245205@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110824060643.401685261@bombadil.infradead.org> Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:55:49 -0500 Message-ID: <1315612549.1999.129.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 02:04 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > plain text document attachment (xfs-bmapi-split-xfs_bmap_extent-2) > There is no real need to the xfs_bmap_add_extent, as the callers know what > kind of extents they need to it. Removing it means duplicating the > extents to btree conversion logic in three places, but overall it's still > a lot less, and much simpler code. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Not really a *lot* less code, but it is an improvement. Simple question below (coding style) but this looks good. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder . . . > > +#ifdef DEBUG > +STATIC void > +xfs_bmap_check_leaf_extents( > + struct xfs_btree_cur *cur, > + struct xfs_inode *ip, > + int whichfork); > +#else > +#define xfs_bmap_check_leaf_extents(cur, ip, whichfork) do { } while (0) > +#endif Why do you use "do {} while (0)" rather than just an empty right hand side? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs