>
> This code looks needlessly complex.
>
> len is never decremented inside the while loop so the while loop
> itself looks unnecessary. Is there some missing decrement of len
> or some other reason to use a while loop?
>
> Is dax_iomap_direct_access some ugly macro that modifies a hidden len?
>
> Why not remove the while loop and use straightforward code without
> unnecessary indentatation?
>
> {
> void *saddr;
> void *daddr;
> bool *same = data;
> int ret;
>
> if (!len ||
> (smap->type == IOMAP_HOLE && dmap->type == IOMAP_HOLE))
> return 0;
>
> if (smap->type == IOMAP_HOLE || dmap->type == IOMAP_HOLE) {
> *same = false;
> return 0;
> }
>
> ret = dax_iomap_direct_access(smap, pos1, ALIGN(pos1 + len,
> PAGE_SIZE),
> &saddr, NULL);
> if (ret < 0)
> return -EIO;
>
> ret = dax_iomap_direct_access(dmap, pos2, ALIGN(pos2 + len,
> PAGE_SIZE),
> &daddr, NULL);
> if (ret < 0)
> return -EIO;
>
> *same = !memcmp(saddr, daddr, len);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> I didn't look at the rest.
>
Sorry for making you confused. This is because I misunderstood how I should
use iomap_apply2(). I have re-sent two new patches to fix this(PATCH 08/10)
and the previous(PATCH 07/10) which are in-reply-to these two patch, please
take a look on those two. Maybe I should resend all of the patchset as a
new one...
--
Thanks,
Ruan Shiyang.
