On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:53:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c > >> index 26484648d090..3866b8ab20f1 100644 > >> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c > >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c > >> @@ -738,7 +738,8 @@ static int add_missing_keys(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > >> BUG_ON(ref->key_for_search.type); > >> BUG_ON(!ref->wanted_disk_byte); > >> > >> - eb = read_tree_block(fs_info, ref->wanted_disk_byte, 0); > >> + eb = read_tree_block(fs_info, ref->wanted_disk_byte, 0, NULL, > >> + 0); > > > > Please add 2nd function that will take the extended parameters and > > keep read_tree_block as is. > > So for any new caller of read_tree_block(), reviewer is the last person > to info the author to use these parameters for safety check? > > And in fact, the old function should be avoid if possible, I think the > new parameters act as a pretty good sign to make any caller double think > about this. I saw half of the new parameters were just 0, NULL, so this looks like a lot of code churn and I haven't looked closer if there's a chance to fill the parameters in all callsites. So if it's a matter of adding them incrementally then fine. -- 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
