On 03/20/2018 07:10 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 20.03.2018 11:53, Anand Jain wrote:In preparation to use the function btrfs_check_super_csum() for the device scan context, make it nonstatic and pass the struct block_device instead of the struct fs_info. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 12 ++++++------ fs/btrfs/disk-io.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index aafd836af61d..d2ace2dca9de 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -393,8 +393,7 @@ static int verify_parent_transid(struct extent_io_tree *io_tree, * Return 0 if the superblock checksum type matches the checksum value of that * algorithm. Pass the raw disk superblock data. */ -static int btrfs_check_super_csum(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, - char *raw_disk_sb) +int btrfs_check_super_csum(struct block_device *bdev, char *raw_disk_sb) {Since this has become a public function and you've changed the fs_info parameter to taking a bdev, which is not used for anything else than printing the error I think it's appropriate to document which block device should be passed to this function. Also passing the block device only for printing purposes seems a bit odd.
Its the device on which we have read the superblock. I find it odd too. Will do that pr_err on the parent function. Will add comments to the public function. Thanks, Anand -- 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
