On 2019/2/25 下午8:15, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:50:43PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> All users of extent_io_tree::private_data are expecting struct inode*.
>> So just use struct inode* to replace extent_io_tree::private_data, and
>> this should provide better type check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
>> struct extent_io_tree {
>> struct rb_root state;
>> - void *private_data;
>> + struct inode *inode;
>> u64 dirty_bytes;
>> int track_uptodate;
>> spinlock_t lock;
>
> So this is effectively reverting c6100a4b4e3d1650deafd ("Btrfs: replace
> tree->mapping with tree->private_data"),
That commit message doesn't explain why this is needed for btree_inode
removal.
Any idea what the extra type would be used in that case?
Thanks,
Qu
> that seems to be preparatory
> work for btree_inode removal. I haven't heared any news about that work
> for a long time though, so if this is going to land any time soon then
> we can keep it there. Otherwise, well, ack for the patch.
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
