On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 05:32:53PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > > + continue; > > + > > + /* > > + * Find the first stale entry at or after our index, if any. > > + * Stop if the answer would be worse than lowstale. > > Stop if the result would require moving more > entries than using lowstale. > > (I realize you didn't change this comment, you just moved > it into this helper function.) I'll change it. > Actually it seems like this searching of the stale > entries and moving things around among them could > be broken into a few even finer-grained utility > routines. It just seems like what this code is > doing is simpler than what the code complexity > suggests (though I haven't really looked at this > stuff much before). Some of this code could use some refactoring, but it's going to be more complex than this patch. Additionally a lot of the logic is duplicate in the block format code, but that format has the freespace "header" at the end in struct xfs_dir2_block_tail, which for the fun of it uses 32-bit count and stale fields instead of the 16-bit values in struct xfs_dir2_leaf_hdr. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
