I ended up dropping this patch since it doesn't make any difference to the generated code (gcc will take a static function which is only used in one place, and inline it) and it makes a bit more understandable to have ext4_end_io() as a separate function. > > + /* Wake up anyone waiting on unwritten extent conversion */ > > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_unwritten)) > > + wake_up_all(ext4_ioend_wq(io->inode)); > > Should we use "inode" instead of "io->inode"? I agree it would be a bit cleaner/more readable, but again it won't make a difference to the generated assembly, and while we oculd do this in the original code in ext4_end_io(), I'm trying to put this patch series to bed so I can push it to Linus, and since we're now not touching the code, it's not worth it to clean this up now. We can take of this later.... - 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
