On 21.02.19 г. 15:15 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 21/02/2019 12:57, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>  
>>  static int cow_file_range_async(struct inode *inode, struct page 
>> *locked_page,
>> @@ -1190,45 +1201,68 @@ static int cow_file_range_async(struct inode *inode, 
>> struct page *locked_page,
>>                              unsigned int write_flags)
>>  {
>>      struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = btrfs_sb(inode->i_sb);
>> -    struct async_cow *async_cow;
>> +    struct async_cow *ctx;
>> +    struct async_chunk *async_cow;
> 
> In case you have to re-send the patch you could maybe rename the
> async_cow variable to async_chunk or sth like that. Would make the
> resulting code a little bit clearer but no strong opinions here.

The reason I left it like that is to minimize the resulting diff.

> 
> Anyways,
> Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumsh...@suse.de>
> 

Reply via email to