On 21.02.19 г. 15:15 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 21/02/2019 12:57, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>> static int cow_file_range_async(struct inode *inode, struct page *locked_page,
>> @@ -1190,45 +1201,68 @@ static int cow_file_range_async(struct inode *inode, struct page *locked_page,
>> unsigned int write_flags)
>> {
>> struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = btrfs_sb(inode->i_sb);
>> - struct async_cow *async_cow;
>> + struct async_cow *ctx;
>> + struct async_chunk *async_cow;
>
> In case you have to re-send the patch you could maybe rename the
> async_cow variable to async_chunk or sth like that. Would make the
> resulting code a little bit clearer but no strong opinions here.
The reason I left it like that is to minimize the resulting diff.
>
> Anyways,
> Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx>
>
