On 21.02.19 г. 17:07 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 21/02/2019 14:25, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Understood, but now we have a 'ctx' of type 'struct async_cow' and a
> '*async_cow' of type 'struct asyn_chunk'. This is the type of code that
> will make people go WTF when they read it in 3-4 cycles.
I also thought of that but then sometimes David has strange tastes re.
code cleanups that add noise. If he is fine with doing the rename in
this patch then I'm happy to do it and resend.
>
>
