On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 08:41:14PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote: > > 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 :-). OH, you were referencing specifically the conversion of the xfs_inode_t in that hunk, not the general theme of removing xfs_dinode_t. Ok, no worries. :) --D > > > > > > > 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! >
