On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:55:37AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 17-03-23 15:56:46, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:11:22PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Also when going for symbolic allocator scan names maybe we could actually > > > make names sensible instead of CR[0-4]? Perhaps like CR_ORDER2_ALIGNED, > > > CR_BEST_LENGHT_FAST, CR_BEST_LENGTH_ALL, CR_ANY_FREE. And probably we could > > > deal with ordered comparisons like in: > > I like this idea, it should make the code a bit more easier to > > understand. However just wondering if I should do it as a part of this > > series or a separate patch since we'll be touching code all around and > > I don't want to confuse people with the noise :) > > I guess a mechanical rename should not be really confusing. It just has to > be a separate patch. Alright, got it. > > > > > > > if (cr < 2 && > > > (!sbi->s_log_groups_per_flex || > > > ((group & ((1 << sbi->s_log_groups_per_flex) - 1)) != 0)) & > > > !(ext4_has_group_desc_csum(sb) && > > > (gdp->bg_flags & cpu_to_le16(EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT)))) > > > return 0; > > > > > > to declare CR_FAST_SCAN = 2, or something like that. What do you think? > > About this, wont it be better to just use something like > > > > cr < CR_BEST_LENGTH_ALL > > > > instead of defining a new CR_FAST_SCAN = 2. > > Yeah, that works as well. > > > The only concern is that if we add a new "fast" CR (say between > > CR_BEST_LENGTH_FAST and CR_BEST_LENGTH_ALL) then we'll need to make > > sure we also update CR_FAST_SCAN to 3 which is easy to miss. > > Well, you have that problem with any naming scheme (and even with numbers). > So as long as names are all defined together, there's reasonable chance > you'll remember to verify the limits still hold :) haha that's true. Anyways, I'll try a few things and see what looks good. Thanks for the suggestions. Regards, ojaswin > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR
