On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 10:07 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 24-05-19 10:07:05, cgxu519@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 16:46 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Tue 21-05-19 16:21:39, Chengguang Xu wrote: > > > > Since xattr entry names are sorted, we don't have > > > > to continue when current entry name is greater than > > > > target. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Thanks for the patch! If we are going to do these comparisons in multiple > > > places, then please create a helper function to do the comparison (so that > > > we have the same comparison in every place). Something like: > > > > > > int ext2_xattr_cmp(int name_index, size_t name_len, const char *name, > > > struct ext2_xattr_entry *entry) > > > > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > Thanks for the review and advice. > > > > You are right we should introduce a helper to handle this part of work > > and personally I think maybe implementing a helper to find target entry > > will be more useful, do you think it makes sense? > > It makes sense but ext2_xattr_set() also computes min_offs and last during > the search so using the search function in that case won't be a readbility > win I guess. So I'm not sure the search function pays off in the end. Yes, I noticed that too, I plan to set min_offs pointer as function parameter so that we can seperate different search modes based on it. Thanks, Chengguang
