On 8/12/21 7:16 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:31:31AM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 8/12/21 10:43 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
/*
* If the size is unreasonable, then something
@@ -162,8 +162,8 @@ xfs_iformat_extents(
*/
STATIC int
xfs_iformat_btree(
- xfs_inode_t *ip,
- xfs_dinode_t *dip,
+ struct xfs_inode *ip,
+ struct xfs_dinode *dip,
int whichfork)
Hi,
since you are also removing xfs_inode_t I'd like to ask if it is a good idea
[assuming you meant xfs_dinode_t here]
Hmm, I'm sorry but I really did mean xfs_inode_t.
Since the patch is named "remove the xfs_dinode_t typedef" removing
xfs_dinode_t is quite expected. But removing xfs_inode_t not so much,
hence I'm asking if I should send a patch that removes completely
xfs_inode_t as is done for xfs_dinode_t by this very patch.
I hope I'm not missing something :-).
to send a separate patch removing all other instances of xfs_inode_t? (I'm
happy to do it).
Seems like a reasonable thing to me.
Great, thanks!
