On 16:47 27/02, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:07:42PM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > io_ctl_init() memsets it to zero anyways. However, I presume the
> > memset was added to avoid the WARN_ON in io_ctl_init().
>
> I don't see any WARN_ON in io_ctl_init, you probably mean
> __btrfs_write_out_cache.
Yes, __btrfs_write_out_cache.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> > index 74aa552f4793..c813378ebf08 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> > @@ -3544,13 +3544,12 @@ int btrfs_write_out_ino_cache(struct btrfs_root *root,
> > struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = root->fs_info;
> > struct btrfs_free_space_ctl *ctl = root->free_ino_ctl;
> > int ret;
> > - struct btrfs_io_ctl io_ctl;
> > + struct btrfs_io_ctl io_ctl = {0};
>
> Doesn't this zero the bytes unconditionally? The memset below happens
> only when the inode cache is on.
Yes, but does it matter. I assumed assignment is faster than memset, but
a google search says gcc optimization is smart enough now. So, this patch
seems irrelevant.
--
Goldwyn
