I told you this code can be made a lot simpler, simply by modifying the last argument passed to zero_dev_clamped. I even posted the resulting diff which was just 3 lines changed. I agree that it's a good idea to wipe all available superblock when we use -b. However I don't agree with your approach - it adds a loop, it adds a bunch of checks and makes the complexity orders of magnitude higher than it could be. So I'm asking again - is there any inherent benefit which I'm missing in your newly added 35 lines of code against just passing the block device to zero_dev_clamped and letting the existing logic take care of everything?
I had that idea for v1 as well, but I didn't do it because it would zero bytenr_copy#2 even when there is no btrfs superblock, (which is fine only with in block_count). Some might view it as corrupting the usr data (for which they have specified -b option?)? I am just discussing I don't have any usecase to prove it though. Do you have any idea? If you think it should be ok, I shall go ahead and zero without checking for the btrfs superblock beyond block_count. 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
