On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 07:43:50PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:08:34AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > The shortform parent ino verification code runs once in phase 3 > > (ino_discovery == true) and once in phase 4 (ino_discovery == > > false). This is unnecessary and leads to duplicate error messages if > > repair replaces an invalid parent value with zero because zero is > > still an invalid value. Skip the check in phase 4. > > This looks good, > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > As far as the existing code is concerned: Does anyone else find the > ino_discovery booleand passed as int as annoying as I do? An > "enum repair_phase phase" would be much more descriptive in my opinion. I can never remember what "ino_discovery" actually means. true means phase2 (looking at inodes for the first time) and false means phase4 (looking for crosslinked data and whatnot)? --D
