On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:59:38AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 03/15/2017 10:38 PM, David Sterba wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:32:04PM -0600, ednadol...@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Edmund Nadolski <enadol...@suse.com> > >> > >> Define the SEQ_NONE macro to replace (u64)-1 in places where said > >> value triggers a special-case ref search behavior. > > > >> index 9c41fba..20915a6 100644 > >> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.h > >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.h > >> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ > >> #include "ulist.h" > >> #include "extent_io.h" > >> > >> +#define SEQ_NONE ((u64)-1) > > The naming of SEQ_NONE sounds not that good to me. > > The (u64)-1 is to to info the backref walker to only search current > root, and no need to worry about delayed_refs, since the caller (qgroup) > will ensure that no delayed_ref will exist. > > While the name SEQ_NONE seems a little like to 0, which is far from the > original meaning. > > What about SEQ_FINAL or SEQ_LAST?
SEQ_LAST sounds good to me. > Since the timing we use (u64)-1 is just before switching commit roots, > it would be better for the naming to indicate that. Yes, makes sense. -- 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
