From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m71JjAMj026682 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:45:10 -0700 Received: from verein.lst.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 2D79DEECEAF for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id HeRMpGKsBZpdtR9O for ; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:46:24 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/21] implement generic xfs_btree_update Message-ID: <20080801194624.GG1263@lst.de> References: <20080729193116.GN19104@lst.de> <20080730052959.GN13395@disturbed> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080730052959.GN13395@disturbed> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 03:29:59PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Oh, it's be moved inside the update code itself. So, why always call > the update function and then check the ptr? Why not the way it was > originally done? Because all three callers do different checks, and I could not proof that they are either identical or hamrless for the other cases. We can clean this mess up later in small standalone patches. > > + /* updated last record information */ > > + void (*update_lastrec)(struct xfs_btree_cur *, > > + struct xfs_btree_block *, > > + union xfs_btree_rec *, int, int); > > Can you add the variable names to the prototype parameters? Done.