On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 08:01:42AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/4/16 上午12:50, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 07:48:51AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2019/4/12 下午11:46, David Sterba wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 02:45:29PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>>> +struct btrfs_ref {
> >>>> + enum btrfs_ref_type type;
> >>>> + int action;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * Only use parent pointers as backref (SHARED_BLOCK_REF or
> >>>> + * SHARED_DATA_REF) for this extent and its children.
> >>>> + * Set for reloc trees.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + bool only_backreferences:1;
> >>>
> >>> I renamed this to only_backrefs and was surprised that there were no
> >>> compilation errors, ie. this member is not used at all ...
> >>
> >> Yep, for callers who really uses this member, they just set @parent, and
> >> that's all.
> >
> > So there's nothing in the old and new code that uses it, then why do you
> > add it? If this is for some existing patchset then ok, keep it there but
> > otherwise remove it.
>
> It should be removed.
> My bad, at the time of writing, I didn't get the point that @parent is
> enough to info to use SHARED_BLOCK_REF_KEY.
>
> Would you mind to fold this removal?
If it's sufficient to remove the struct member then I'll do that, no
need to resend.
