On Mon 31-01-22 20:46:53, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> We don't need the return value of mb_test_and_clear_bits() in ext4_mb_mark_bb()
> So simply use mb_clear_bits() instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good. I'm rather confused by ext4_set_bits() vs mb_clear_bits()
asymetry but that's not directly related to this patch. Just another
cleanup to do. Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Honza
> ---
> fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index 60d32d3d8dc4..2f931575e6c2 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -3943,7 +3943,7 @@ void ext4_mb_mark_bb(struct super_block *sb, ext4_fsblk_t block,
> if (state)
> ext4_set_bits(bitmap_bh->b_data, blkoff, clen);
> else
> - mb_test_and_clear_bits(bitmap_bh->b_data, blkoff, clen);
> + mb_clear_bits(bitmap_bh->b_data, blkoff, clen);
> if (ext4_has_group_desc_csum(sb) &&
> (gdp->bg_flags & cpu_to_le16(EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT))) {
> gdp->bg_flags &= cpu_to_le16(~EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT);
> --
> 2.31.1
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
