On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 09:53:15AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > + if (tail_cycle == head_cycle && head_bytes >= tail_bytes) {
> > + return log->l_logsize - (head_bytes - tail_bytes);
> > + } else if (tail_cycle + 1 < head_cycle) {
> > return 0;
> > + } else if (xlog_is_shutdown(log)) {
> > + /* Ignore potential inconsistency when shutdown. */
> > + return log->l_logsize;
> > + } else if (tail_cycle < head_cycle) {
> > ASSERT(tail_cycle == (head_cycle - 1));
> > + return tail_bytes - head_bytes;
> > }
>
> Drop the else after the returns to make this a little easier to follow:
>
> if (tail_cycle == head_cycle && head_bytes >= tail_bytes)
> return log->l_logsize - (head_bytes - tail_bytes);
> if (tail_cycle + 1 < head_cycle)
> return 0;
>
> /* Ignore potential inconsistency when shutdown. */
> if (xlog_is_shutdown(log)) {
> return log->l_logsize;
>
> if (tail_cycle < head_cycle) {
> ASSERT(tail_cycle == (head_cycle - 1));
> return tail_bytes - head_bytes;
> }
Yup, that's better. I'll fix it.
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
