On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:56:17AM +0100, Fanael Linithien wrote:
> 2014-11-03 23:34 GMT+01:00 Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 11:12:12PM +0100, Fanael Linithien wrote:
> >> 2014-11-03 17:12 GMT+01:00 Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >
> >> > +static inline bool xfs_inobt_issparse(uint16_t holemask)
> >> > +{
> >> > + return holemask == 0 ? false : true;
> >> > +}
> >>
> >> Surely that should be "return holemask != 0;"?
> >>
> >
> > ir_holemask bits are set for holes in the inode chunk and unset for
> > allocated regions. This means that ir_holemask == 0 for a normal,
> > fully-allocated chunk and != 0 otherwise (some bits are set to indicate
> > the chunk has a hole). Check out the commit log for patch 4 for
> > reasoning.
>
> Oh, I don't comment on the logic, as I don't really know much about
> XFS code. It's purely a stylistic suggestion: "holemask == 0 ? false :
> true" looks entirely equivalent to "holemask != 0".
Ah right, sorry. Yes, that makes sense. I'll fix this up in the next
version. Thanks!
Brian
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
