On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:53:45PM +0800, gHcAgree wrote: > > On 2014年03月03日 21:31, Liu Bo wrote: > >It's unnecessary to update key's value, and remove it to keep code clean. > > > >Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> > >--- > > fs/btrfs/send.c | 4 ---- > > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >index 3fe4d6e..a5f9626 100644 > >--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > >+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >@@ -5180,10 +5180,6 @@ static int full_send_tree(struct send_ctx *sctx) > > if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > >- key.objectid = found_key.objectid; > >- key.type = found_key.type; > >- key.offset = found_key.offset + 1; > >- > > ret = btrfs_next_item(send_root, path); > > if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > Hi Liu and all, > I think the statements may better be reserved. I noticed that there > is an "goto join_trans" above. I think we may hit it in the next > round and exec from the "join_trans" down, then these 3 assignments > effect. Yeah, I think you're right, with btrfs-next, we should keep these assignments. -liubo -- 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
