On 2017/10/30 15:19, Fan Li wrote:
> Make three modification for __update_nat_bits:
> 1. Take the codes of dealing the nat with nid 0 out of the loop
> Such nat only needs to be dealt with once at beginning.
> 2. Use " nat_index == 0" instead of " start_nid == 0" to decide if it's the
> first nat block
> It's better that we don't assume @start_nid is the first nid of the nat
> block it's in.
> 3. Use " if (nat_blk->entries[i].block_addr != NULL_ADDR)" to explicitly
> comfirm the value of block_addr
> use constant to make sure the codes is right, even if the value of
> NULL_ADDR changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fan li <fanofcode...@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
Thanks,
> ---
> fs/f2fs/node.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> index ac629d6..b97a031 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> @@ -2407,15 +2407,17 @@ static void __update_nat_bits(struct f2fs_sb_info
> *sbi, nid_t start_nid,
> unsigned int nat_index = start_nid / NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK;
> struct f2fs_nat_block *nat_blk = page_address(page);
> int valid = 0;
> - int i;
> + int i = 0;
>
> if (!enabled_nat_bits(sbi, NULL))
> return;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK; i++) {
> - if (start_nid == 0 && i == 0)
> - valid++;
> - if (nat_blk->entries[i].block_addr)
> + if (nat_index == 0) {
> + valid = 1;
> + i = 1;
> + }
> + for (; i < NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK; i++) {
> + if (nat_blk->entries[i].block_addr != NULL_ADDR)
> valid++;
> }
> if (valid == 0) {
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>
>
