On Jun 06, 2008 00:42 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:28:30PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > I don't necessarily agree that meta should be implied by inode != NULL. > > We do want to cluster metadata allocations for a single inode if possible, > > so keeping the inode information is useful. We may want to keep a separate > > "metadata goal block" from the "data goal block" in the inode... > > > > That said, it seems you still have a "meta" parameter here? I always hate > > having an int for a boolean, and we may as well make this a "flags" so > > that when we want to improve it later we don't need to rename it and change > > all of the "1" parameters to "EXT4_META_BLOCK". Do it right the first time. > > > > how about ? > > +#defin EXT4_META_BLOCK 0x1 > @@ -1950,7 +1952,7 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t do_blk_alloc(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, > - if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && !meta) > + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && !(flags & EXT4_META_BLOCK)) I'm fine with this. > + return do_blk_alloc(handle, inode, 0, goal, &count, > + errp, EXT4_META_BLOCK); Please follow the normal CodingStyle. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
