On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:25:24AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> On 02/26/2014 12:28 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 07:48:57PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> >>Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>---
> >> ctree.h | 8 +++++---
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/ctree.h b/ctree.h
> >>index 3cc3477..9b461af 100644
> >>--- a/ctree.h
> >>+++ b/ctree.h
> >>@@ -984,9 +984,11 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info {
> >> struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices;
> >> struct list_head space_info;
> >> int system_allocs;
> >>- int readonly;
> >>- int on_restoring;
> >>- int is_chunk_recover;
> >>+
> >>+ unsigned int readonly:1;
> >>+ unsigned int on_restoring:1;
> >>+ unsigned int is_chunk_recover:1;
> >Well, the integers are wasteful, but there's only one instance of
> >fs_info per fsck run, so it saves like 8 bytes in total. I'm not sure
> >this patch is needed.
> Originally, i wrote this patch, it is because i was going to add a new flag.
> However, that approach has been replaced by a better idea.
>
> Anyway, this patch will be a good start, however, i don't insist on it.
> We can also change it when we have to add another flag later.
Ok, let's keep it, as an example of the pattern 'bitfields for flags'.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
