On 10/18/2012 03:31 PM, Jan Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, October 18, 2012 at 09:10 (+0200), Liu Bo wrote: >> Parents must be same after going through ref_for_same_block. > > Well. We could kill that for the moment. However, ref_for_same_block wasn't > meant to check for the parent. We should do ... > > --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c > @@ -400,8 +400,6 @@ static inline int ref_for_same_block(struct __prelim_ref > *ref1, > return 0; > if (ref1->key_for_search.offset != ref2->key_for_search.offset) > return 0; > - if (ref1->parent != ref2->parent) > - return 0; > > return 1; > } > > Those two lines were originally added while debugging. The idea was to merge > indirect (parent == 0) and shared backrefs (parent != 0) to avoid the > expensive > tree search for indirect backrefs when possible. > > We would need extensive testing to remove those two lines from the current > version, though... >
Oh, all right, would you make this as a patch by yourself or I can send a V2 for you? thanks, liubo > -Jan > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
