On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:31:46PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> May be you want to merge the ext4_remove_blocks changes also. That make
> sure anybody reading code doesn't have to spent time in figuring out
> why ext4_forget is called with metadata = 0 and ext4_free_blocks is called
> with metadata = 1.
Yeah, I suppose so. The reason why I didn't was because currently
ext4_forget() doesn't get called with metadata = 1 on the
direct/indirect-mapped path for directories and symlinks, and I
figured why not keep things consistent between those two callers of
ext4_forget().
Long term we should probably clean up the indirect path as well, I
suppose, and then remove the safety checks in ext4_free_blocks() and
ext4_forget(). That will save a tiny amount of CPU, which I doubt
anyone except Google will be able to measure or notice. :-)
- Ted
--
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
