On 2020/2/14 下午5:24, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> + * This helper is here to determine if that's the case.
>> + */
>> +static inline bool btrfs_backref_has_tree_block_info(
>> + struct btrfs_backref_iterator *iterator)
>> +{
>> + if (iterator->cur_key.type == BTRFS_EXTENT_ITEM_KEY &&
>> + iterator->cur_ptr - iterator->item_ptr ==
>> + sizeof(struct btrfs_extent_item))
>> + return true;
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int btrfs_backref_iterator_start(struct btrfs_backref_iterator *iterator,
>> + u64 bytenr);
>> +int btrfs_backref_iterator_next(struct btrfs_backref_iterator *iterator);
>
> You are exposing a function here which is not implemented. Remove this
> line and add it in the next patch where you actually introduce
> iterator_next.
OK, I'll take this as a generic principle for later patches.
Thanks,
Qu
>
>> +
>> #endif
>>
