Re: [PATCH v6 01/24] erofs: add on-disk layout

[Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Christoph,

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 02:59:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

[]

> 
> > +static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode)
> > +{
> > +	if (datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION)
> > +		return true;
> > +	return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY;
> > +}
> 
> This looks like a really obsfucated way to write:
> 
> 	return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION ||
> 		datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY;

Add a word about this, the above approach is not horrible if more
datamode add here and comments, e.g

static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode)
{
	/* has z_erofs_map_header */
	if (datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION)
		return true;
	/* some blablabla */
	if (datamode == (1) )
		return true;
	/* some blablablabla */
	if (datamode == (2) )
		return true;
	/* no z_erofs_map_header */
	return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY;
}

vs.

static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode)
{
	/* has z_erofs_map_header */
	return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION ||
		/* some blablabla */
	       datamode == (1) ||
	       	/* some blablablabla */
	       datamode == (2) ||
	        /* no z_erofs_map_header */
	       datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY;
}

I have no idea which one is better.
Anyway, if you still like the form, I will change it.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang