[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0806021041m20858599x8d35c9684efe8977@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:41:46 +0200
From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: "Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] quota: Remove use of info_any_dirty()
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> Since there is only a single place which uses info_any_dirty() and that
> is a trivial macro, just remove the use of this macro completely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> ---
> fs/quota.c | 7 +++++--
> include/linux/quota.h | 2 --
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/quota.c b/fs/quota.c
> index db1cc9f..f0702f4 100644
> --- a/fs/quota.c
> +++ b/fs/quota.c
> @@ -199,8 +199,11 @@ restart:
> list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
> /* This test just improves performance so it needn't be reliable... */
> for (cnt = 0, dirty = 0; cnt < MAXQUOTAS; cnt++)
> - if ((type == cnt || type == -1) && sb_has_quota_enabled(sb, cnt)
> - && info_any_dirty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->info[cnt]))
> + if ((type == cnt || type == -1)
> + && sb_has_quota_enabled(sb, cnt)
> + && (info_dirty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->info[cnt])
> + || !list_empty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->
> + info[cnt].dqi_dirty_list)))
> dirty = 1;
This is really too hideous in my opinion and looks like a candidate
for its own static inline function.
Or you can try to rewrite the boolean expression on multiple lines
using continue, something like:
- for (cnt = 0, dirty = 0; cnt < MAXQUOTAS; cnt++)
- if ((type == cnt || type == -1) && sb_has_quota_enabled(
- && info_any_dirty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->info[cnt]))
- dirty = 1;
+ for (cnt = 0, dirty = 0; cnt < MAXQUOTAS; cnt++) {
+ if (type != cnt && type != -1)
+ continue;
+ if (!sb_has_quota_enabled(sb, cnt))
+ continue;
+ if (!info_any_dirty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->info[cnt]))
+ continue;
+ dirty = 1;
+ }
(This uses the original macro, I know. How about moving that from the
header to a new inline function just above this function?)
What do you think?
Vegard
PS: This is a really good clean-up effort. Good work!
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists