Hi David,
On 2014/12/30 0:09, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 06:21:41PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
From: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
@@ -2190,7 +2190,7 @@ void btrfs_free_io_failure_record(struct inode *inode, u64 start, u64 end)
next = next_state(state);
- failrec = (struct io_failure_record *)state->private;
+ failrec = (struct io_failure_record *)(unsigned long)state->private;
We're always using the 'private' data to store a pointer to
'struct io_failure_record *', please change the defintion in
'struct extent_state' instead of the typecasting.
Current definition is as follow.
===============================================================================
struct extent_state {
...
/* for use by the FS */
u64 private;
};
===============================================================================
It it OK to changing "u64 private" to "struct io_failure_record *failrec"
and change "{set,get}_state_private()" to "{set,get}_state_failrec()?
Or is it better to keep the name "private" as is and just change its type
to "unsigned long" or "(void *)"?
Thanks,
Satoru
free_extent_state(state);
kfree(failrec);
--
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
