Hi Pratik,
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:08:40AM +0530, Pratik Shinde wrote:
> in fill_inode() we call iloc() twice.Avoiding the extra call by
> storing the result.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pratik Shinde <pratikshinde320@xxxxxxxxx>
I have no objection of this patch, but I'd like to
hear Chao/Greg's idea about this...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
> ---
> drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c
> index 4c3d8bf..d82ba6c 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c
> @@ -167,11 +167,12 @@ static int fill_inode(struct inode *inode, int isdir)
> int err;
> erofs_blk_t blkaddr;
> unsigned int ofs;
> + erofs_off_t inode_loc;
>
> trace_erofs_fill_inode(inode, isdir);
> -
> - blkaddr = erofs_blknr(iloc(sbi, vi->nid));
> - ofs = erofs_blkoff(iloc(sbi, vi->nid));
> + inode_loc = iloc(sbi, vi->nid);
> + blkaddr = erofs_blknr(inode_loc);
> + ofs = erofs_blkoff(inode_loc);
>
> debugln("%s, reading inode nid %llu at %u of blkaddr %u",
> __func__, vi->nid, ofs, blkaddr);
> --
> 2.9.3
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
