On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>
>> 2011/7/29 Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> >> diff -puN fs/ext4/ext4.h~ext4-use-proper-little-endian-bitops fs/ext4/ext4.h
>> >> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h~ext4-use-proper-little-endian-bitops
>> >> +++ a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
>> >> @@ -931,12 +931,13 @@ struct ext4_inode_info {
>> >> #define test_opt2(sb, opt) (EXT4_SB(sb)->s_mount_opt2 & \
>> >> EXT4_MOUNT2_##opt)
>> >>
>> >> -#define ext4_set_bit __test_and_set_bit_le
>> >> +#define ext4_test_and_set_bit __test_and_set_bit_le
>> >> +#define ext4_set_bit __set_bit_le
>> >> #define ext4_set_bit_atomic ext2_set_bit_atomic
>> > We can remove this since it is not used anywhere and it is just a macro
>> > for test_and_set_bit_le() anyway.
>>
>> Amir Goldstein requested not to remove it because ext4 snapshot patches is
>> using ext4_set_bit_atomic(), although I really don't know about the status of
>> mainline inclusion.
>
> It is not anywhere near inclusion. Moreover it is using
> __test_and_set_bit_le, but the name does not really imply *test*.
> So please, just remove it and when Amir is going to
> need it someday he might add proper define with the proper name using
> the proper set, or test_and_set functions.
>
Yongqiang,
Please refresh my memory.
Are we still using those macros?
Didn't we say will need to switch to using mballoc's ext4_set_bits() instead?
I think you modified the calls in some of the execution paths and not
all of them
(i.e. not in MOW), which is probably a bug.
Cheers,
Amir.
--
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
