On 2018/04/17 2:53, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 02:20:49PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote: >> Use btrfs_delete_subvolume() to refactor btrfs_ioctl_snap_destroy(). >> The permission check is still done in btrfs_ioctl_snap_destroy(). Also, >> call of d_delete() is still required since btrfs_delete_subvolume() >> does not call it. >> >> As a result, btrfs_unlink_subvol() and may_destroy_subvol() >> become static functions. No functional change happens. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono <misono.tomohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Why is this still split into two patches? Factoring out a function > should happen in one patch, ie 2 and 3 in one go. Do you have a reason > not to do it like that? I thought this reduces code change in one patch and might be good, but I'm completely fine with merging 2nd and 3rd patches. Should I send v5? -- 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
