On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 09:09:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2017年09月23日 08:48, Liu Bo wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 08:46:55AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 2017年09月23日 07:36, Liu Bo wrote: > >>> This uses a bool 'do_backup' to help understand this piece of code. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> This is based on a patch "Btrfs: do not backup tree roots when fsync". > >>> > >>> fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 3 ++- > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > >>> index cdb7043..9811b9d 100644 > >>> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > >>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > >>> @@ -3691,6 +3691,7 @@ int write_all_supers(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, int max_mirrors) > >>> int max_errors; > >>> int total_errors = 0; > >>> u64 flags; > >>> + bool do_backup = (max_mirrors == 0); > >> > >> Why not replacing @max_mirrors with @do_backup as parameter? > > > > If I read the code correctly, max_mirrors is not just for deciding > > backup. > > That's strange. > > write_all_supers() only uses @max_mirrors by passing it to > write_dev_supers() and wait_dev_supers(). > > Both of the write/wait_dev_supers() will replace @max_mirrors to > BTRFS_SUPER_MIRROR_MAX if it's zero. > > Further more, all write_all_supers() callers just pass @max_mirrors as > bool (either 0 or 1). > > So I don't see any point not replacing the parameter as bool. Agreed, the idea was to replace the parameter by the bool. -- 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
