>> @@ -875,6 +877,24 @@ static void null_free_sector(struct nullb *nullb, sector_t sector,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static void null_zero_sector(struct nullb_device *d, sector_t sect,
>> + sector_t nr_sects, bool cache)
>> +{
>
> Any reason to not just pass the tree root directly here instead of the
> cache boolean? It might make the callers more readable and also
> eliminates the need to pass the nullb_device.
>
> Brian
>
I kept the style similar to null_free_sector() where root is calculated
inside the helper acting on the sector, if we change that for
null_zero_sector() then I think we need to change for null_free_sector()
for consistency, unless you strongly object it for some reason.
-ck
