On 2019/2/25 下午8:15, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:50:43PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> All users of extent_io_tree::private_data are expecting struct inode*. >> So just use struct inode* to replace extent_io_tree::private_data, and >> this should provide better type check. >> >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]> >> struct extent_io_tree { >> struct rb_root state; >> - void *private_data; >> + struct inode *inode; >> u64 dirty_bytes; >> int track_uptodate; >> spinlock_t lock; > > So this is effectively reverting c6100a4b4e3d1650deafd ("Btrfs: replace > tree->mapping with tree->private_data"),
That commit message doesn't explain why this is needed for btree_inode removal. Any idea what the extra type would be used in that case? Thanks, Qu > that seems to be preparatory > work for btree_inode removal. I haven't heared any news about that work > for a long time though, so if this is going to land any time soon then > we can keep it there. Otherwise, well, ack for the patch. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
