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.
>>>
...snip...
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> index 09922ae..a810a21 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> @@ -4048,7 +4048,7 @@ ext4_fsblk_t ext4_mb_new_blocks(handle_t *handle,
>> sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
>>
>> if (!test_opt(sb, MBALLOC)) {
>> - block = ext4_new_blocks_old(handle, ar->inode, ar->goal,
>> + block = ext4_orlov_new_blocks(handle, ar->inode, ar->goal,
>> &(ar->len), errp);
>> return block;
>> }
>
> when we get to ext4_mb_new_blocks, don't we already tested MBALLOC is
> turned on?
>
ext4_ext_get_blocks calls ext4_mb_new_blocks. So we have to check this.
So maybe ext4_ext_get_blocks should call ext4_new_blocks and
we can remove this check.
-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
