[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGqmi771dsWiAJC8=xYn+cvkNoCaTA9uzosrAAhfp9ABxR9+bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:21:41 +0300
From: Timofey Titovets <nefelim4ag@...il.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove custom crc32c init code from btrfs
2018-01-08 12:45 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>:
> So here is a small 2 patch set which removes btrfs' manual initialisation of
> the lower level crc32c module. Explanation why is ok can be found in Patch 2/2.
>
> Patch 1/2 just adds a function to the generic crc32c header which allows
> querying the actual crc32c implementaiton used (i.e. software or hw-accelerated)
> to retain current btrfs behavior. This is mainly used for debugging purposes
> and is independent.
>
> Nikolay Borisov (2):
> libcrc32c: Add crc32c_impl function
> btrfs: Remove custom crc32c init code
>
> fs/btrfs/Kconfig | 3 +--
> fs/btrfs/Makefile | 2 +-
> fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 4 ++--
> fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 16 ++++++++++++++
> fs/btrfs/dir-item.c | 1 -
> fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 4 ++--
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 10 ++++-----
> fs/btrfs/hash.c | 54 ----------------------------------------------
> fs/btrfs/hash.h | 43 ------------------------------------
> fs/btrfs/inode-item.c | 1 -
> fs/btrfs/inode.c | 1 -
> fs/btrfs/props.c | 2 +-
> fs/btrfs/send.c | 4 ++--
> fs/btrfs/super.c | 14 ++++--------
> fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/crc32c.h | 1 +
> lib/libcrc32c.c | 6 ++++++
> 17 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-)
> delete mode 100644 fs/btrfs/hash.c
> delete mode 100644 fs/btrfs/hash.h
>
> --
> 2.7.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Reviewed-by: Timofey Titovets <nefelim4ag@...il.com>
P.S.
May that are overkill to remove hash.c completely?
i.e. if we have a "plan" to support another hash algo,
we still need some abstractions for that.
Inband dedup don't touch hash.* so, no one else must be affected.
Thanks.
--
Have a nice day,
Timofey.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists