2013-02-26 (화), 20:52 +0900, Namjae Jeon:
> > @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ int get_dnode_of_data(struct dnode_of_data *dn, pgoff_t
> > index, int ro)
> > alloc_nid_done(sbi, nids[i]);
> > mutex_unlock_op(sbi, NODE_NEW);
> > done = true;
> > - } else if (ro && i == level && level > 1) {
> > + } else if (mode == LOOKUP_NODE_RA && i == level && level > 1) {
> > npage[i] = get_node_page_ra(parent, offset[i - 1]);
> > if (IS_ERR(npage[i])) {
> > err = PTR_ERR(npage[i]);
>
> Hi Jaegeuk.
> There is no LOOKUP_NODE usage in this patch.
> I think that we can use LOOKUP_NODE flag instead of done(bool) like this.
> if (mode == LOOKUP_NODE)Hi. In order to do that, we should check additional conditions like i and level together with mode == LOOKUP_NODE. So, I'm not sure how much it makes clearer by using LOOKUP_NODE explicitly. It seems fine to me, since we can just use LOOKUP_NODE to distinguish it from the other modes. Any thought? -- Jaegeuk Kim Samsung
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
