On Mon 20-04-15 10:42:13, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 04/20/2015 10:04 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > >On Fri 17-04-15 08:59:33, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>@@ -292,8 +292,8 @@ void bio_reset(struct bio *bio) > >> __bio_free(bio); > >> > >> memset(bio, 0, BIO_RESET_BYTES); > >>- bio->bi_flags = flags|(1 << BIO_UPTODATE); > >>- atomic_set(&bio->bi_remaining, 1); > >>+ bio->bi_flags = flags | 1 << BIO_UPTODATE; > > Although this is correct, I'd prefer to keep parenthesis around 1 << > >BIO_UPTODATE. Maybe I'm not a real C hacker but I had to lookup the > >operator precedence of | vs << :). > > Heh, I think we can safely say you are a real C hacker, lets just > keep the parenthesis if that makes it easier to read/verify. > > >Otherwise the patch looks good to me (but I'm not an expert in this area, I > >just looked into the patch by accident because I thought it's another > >respin of your direct IO patch ;). > > It's a parallel effort, getting rid of the atomics where we can... > Thanks for looking at it, can I add your reviewed-by tag with the > parenthesis change? Yes, you can. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
