Re: [PATCH 1/7] xfs: introduce new private btree cursor names

Dave Chinner
2020-03-05T02:47:32Z

On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 06:29:01PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 12:45:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >
> > Just the defines of the new names - the conversion will be in
> > scripted commits after this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h
> > index 3eff7c321d43..bd5a2bfca64e 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h
> > @@ -224,6 +224,8 @@ typedef struct xfs_btree_cur
> > #define XFS_BTCUR_BPRV_INVALID_OWNER (1<<1) /* for ext swap */
> > } b;
> > } bc_private; /* per-btree type data */
> > +#define bc_ag bc_private.a
> > +#define bc_bt bc_private.b
>
> Hm. I get that the historical meaning of "b" was for "bmbt", but it's
> not a great descriptor since the fields in bc_private.b are really for
> inode-rooted btrees, of which the bmbt is currently the only user. If
> we ever get around to adding the realtime rmapbt, then "bc_bt" is going
> to seem a bit anachronistic.
>
> bc_ino, perhaps?

Sure, makes no difference to me. It's just a case of running sed
over all the patches before I rebase the series...

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com