Mingming Cao Wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 14:13 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 11:22:20PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: >>> when I moved this patch to the beginning of the unstable patch queue, >>> it didn't apply. When I tried to look at it, my head started >>> spinning. The patch applied to the wrong function, apparently, >>> because there is so much code duplication "patch" got confused. I >>> can't blame it, though, because *I* got confused. >>> >>> fs/ext4/balloc.c is a complete disaster right now. We have: >>> >>> ext4_new_blocks_old() >>> ext4_new_meta_block() >>> ext4_new_meta_blocks() >>> ext4_new_blocks() >>> >>> ... and without any comments, it is extremely impenetrable. Someone >>> needs to document what the heck all of the various functions have to >>> do with each other, when they get used (i.e., with which mount options). >>> > > One more thing, I feel we should clean up inode.c, move the functions > related to non extent file allocation from inode.c into balloc.c, and > try to keep balloc.c the single file to handle allocation for non extent > files. > I don't agree this. balloc.c is for non mballoc allocation, not for non extent files. Maybe we need a noextent.c for non extent file allocation, now it's done in inode.c. -Shen Feng -- 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
