On 2019/8/14 9:59, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Pratik,
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:08:40AM +0530, Pratik Shinde wrote:
>> in fill_inode() we call iloc() twice.Avoiding the extra call by
>> storing the result.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pratik Shinde <pratikshinde...@gmail.com>
>
> I have no objection of this patch, but I'd like to
> hear Chao/Greg's idea about this...
It looks more clean. :)
Nitpick, maybe change 'inode_loc' to shorter 'iloc' will be better.
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c
>> index 4c3d8bf..d82ba6c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/inode.c
>> @@ -167,11 +167,12 @@ static int fill_inode(struct inode *inode, int isdir)
>> int err;
>> erofs_blk_t blkaddr;
>> unsigned int ofs;
>> + erofs_off_t inode_loc;
>>
>> trace_erofs_fill_inode(inode, isdir);
>> -
>> - blkaddr = erofs_blknr(iloc(sbi, vi->nid));
>> - ofs = erofs_blkoff(iloc(sbi, vi->nid));
>> + inode_loc = iloc(sbi, vi->nid);
>> + blkaddr = erofs_blknr(inode_loc);
>> + ofs = erofs_blkoff(inode_loc);
>>
>> debugln("%s, reading inode nid %llu at %u of blkaddr %u",
>> __func__, vi->nid, ofs, blkaddr);
>> --
>> 2.9.3
>>
> .
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
