[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <87wmwcf15w.fsf@doe.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 14:22:43 +0530
From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, tytso@....edu,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca
Cc: ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/12] ext4: call ext4_mb_mark_context in ext4_free_blocks_simple
Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com> writes:
> call ext4_mb_mark_context in ext4_free_blocks_simple to:
> 1. remove repeat code
> 2. pair update of free_clusters in ext4_mb_new_blocks_simple.
> 3. add missing ext4_lock_group/ext4_unlock_group protection.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 33 +--------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index e1320eea46e9..cd2fd5dbfcdd 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -6393,43 +6393,12 @@ ext4_mb_free_metadata(handle_t *handle, struct ext4_buddy *e4b,
> static void ext4_free_blocks_simple(struct inode *inode, ext4_fsblk_t block,
> unsigned long count)
This might need some auditing later (need not be as part of this series)
on why it is an unsigned long. I think it is just a left over and an
unsigned int should be sufficient.
But either ways this patch looks good to me. Feel free to add -
Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
-ritesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists