On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 01:07:05PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> +#define BTRFS_DELAYED_NODE_IN_LIST 0
> +#define BTRFS_DELAYED_NODE_INODE_DIRTY 1
> +
> struct btrfs_delayed_node {
> u64 inode_id;
> u64 bytes_reserved;
> @@ -65,8 +68,7 @@ struct btrfs_delayed_node {
> struct btrfs_inode_item inode_item;
> atomic_t refs;
> u64 index_cnt;
> - bool in_list;
> - bool inode_dirty;
> + unsigned long flags;
> int count;
> };
What's the reason to do that? Replacing 2 bools with a bitfield
does not seem justified, not from saving memory, nor from a performance
gain side. Also some of the bit operations imply the lock instruction
prefix so this affects the surrounding items as well.
I don't think this is needed, unless you have further plans with the
flags item.
david
--
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
