Re: ext4: cache all of an extent tree's leaf block upon reading

["Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:37:49AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>  > +void ext4_es_cache_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
>  > +			  ext4_lblk_t len, ext4_fsblk_t pblk,
>  > +			  unsigned int status)
>  > +{
>  > +	struct extent_status *es;
>  > +	struct extent_status newes;
>  > +	ext4_lblk_t end = lblk + len - 1;
>  > +
>  > +	newes.es_lblk = lblk;
>  > +	newes.es_len = len;
>  > +	ext4_es_store_pblock(&newes, pblk);
> 
> 
> ext4_es_store_pblock or's the pblk with the existing contents of the struct member.
> (albeit masked with ES_MASK)
> 
> Should there be a 
> 
> 	newes.es_pblk = 0;
> 
> up there too ?

The next line after ext4_es_store_pblock() is:

        ext4_es_store_status(&newes, status);

This will set remaining ES_WRITTEN | ES_UNWRITTEN... bits.

So the only reason to add a line explicitly setting es_pblk to zero
would be to suppress a warning from some insufficiently smart static
code analysis tool.  I didn't see a warning from gcc, but it's
possible that this is something which is causing Coverity or some
other code scanner heartburn.

Cheers,

					- Ted