From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m721ECDk022516 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:14:12 -0700 Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BB57F352C7A for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net [203.16.214.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id F6hpy0xbA8HlFo7W for ; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 11:15:23 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/21] implement generic xfs_btree_update Message-ID: <20080802011523.GM6201@disturbed> References: <20080729193116.GN19104@lst.de> <20080730052959.GN13395@disturbed> <20080801194624.GG1263@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080801194624.GG1263@lst.de> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 09:46:24PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Ok. Sounds like a good plan. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com