On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 01:00:25PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > + ASSERT(list_empty(&lip->li_trans) && !bp->b_transp); > > Nit: Two separate ASSERTS are generally better than one with two > conditions and a "&&", so that when the assert triggers it shows which > condition caused it. > In this case both checks pretty much mean the same thing so I don't see much added value, but I don't mind splitting it.. Brian
