[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130905145334.GB23661@thunk.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 10:53:34 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ext4: cache all of an extent tree's leaf block upon reading
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
--
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