On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:25:43AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This looks generally good, but I have a few nitpicks, too :) > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:05:50AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > - bool clean; > > + bool dirty; > > bool aborted; > > + bool ordered; > > Can we just initialize all these variables here at the declaration > Sure.. > > + * The bli dirty state should match whether the blf has logged segments > > + * except for ordered buffers, where only the bli should be dirty. > > */ > > + dirty = (flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY) ? true : false; > > + ordered = (flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED) ? true : false; > > No need for the "? true : false" both for these two and the existing > aborted case. > Ok, so I assume you mean to change these to something like: bool aborted = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ABORTED); ... > > +/* > > + * Return true if the buffer has any ranges logged/dirtied by a transaction, > > + * false otherwise. > > + */ > > +bool > > +xfs_buf_item_dirty_format( > > Do you need this outside of xfs_buf_item.c later? > It's used in xfs_trans_buf.c as well. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
