> On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Tashin, we are already using the "no_mbcache" option name, so would prefer >> to keep that working. It would be OK to accept both option names to mean >> the same thing, and only document the "nombcache" option. > > Updated patch to accept both nombcache and no_mbcache. > >>> struct mb_cache *s_mb_cache; >>> + struct mb_cache *s_ea_inode_cache; >> >> These names should be consistent, like "s_ea_block_cache". > > Yes, I will rename this to s_ea_block_cache. > >>> #define EXT4_GET_MB_CACHE(inode) (((struct ext4_sb_info *) \ >>> inode->i_sb->s_fs_info)->s_mb_cache) >>> >>> +#define EA_INODE_CACHE(inode) (((struct ext4_sb_info *) \ >>> + inode->i_sb->s_fs_info)->s_ea_inode_cache) >> >> These names should be consistent, like EXT4_GET_EA_CACHE() or maybe >> EXT4_GET_EA_BLOCK_CACHE() and EXT4_GET_EA_INODE_CACHE(). > > How about EA_BLOCK_CACHE() and EA_INODE_CACHE() to keep them short? Sure, that is fine since these macros are local to xattr.c. Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
