On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:54:08PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> From: Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com>
>
> We can't use entry->bytes if our entry is a bitmap entry, we need to use
> entry->max_extent_size in that case. Fix up all the logic to make this
> consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> index e077ad3b4549..2e96ee7da3ec 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> @@ -1770,6 +1770,18 @@ static int search_bitmap(struct btrfs_free_space_ctl
> *ctl,
> return -1;
> }
>
> +static void set_max_extent_size(struct btrfs_free_space *entry,
I find this a bit confusing, in the code it's like
set_max_extent_size(entry, max_extent_size)
so it reads like 'set max extent size of the entry to value', while the
function does the opposite. That the 2nd parameter is a pointer does not
help either. A function comment explaining that would not help as it's
confusing at the callsites.
*max_extent_size = get_max_extent_size(entry, *max_extent_size)
This is more obvious what it does but can't be called an improvement
regarding readability. Other ideas?
