On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 01:14:37PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > Can we just open code ext->idx here rather than maintain two counters, > or will that go away later? This area will change quite a bit. Please take a look at the end result. > > - ASSERT(bma->idx >= 0); > > - ASSERT(bma->idx <= xfs_iext_count(ifp)); > > I think it might be useful to encapsulate this check (which is also part > of xfs_iext_get_extent()) into a cursor validation helper so we can > preserve these asserts (here and in the other bmap functions). E.g., > something like: > > ASSERT(xfs_iext_valid(&bma->ext)); I'll take a look at that. > 1.) Why do we place these new cursors directly on the stack as opposed > to dynamic allocation? Why would be do a dynamic allocation? > 2.) Why not encode the fork/inode in the cursor rather than passing them > around throughout the helper functions? We could do that, but I'm not sure it's really worth the effort. -- 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
