On Fri, 03/11 15:58, Max Reitz wrote: > > + /* Test "unset" -> "set" will update meta */ > > + hbitmap_set(data->hb, start, count); > > + hbitmap_check_meta(data, check_start, check_count); > > + > > + /* Test "set" -> "set" will not update meta */ > > + hbitmap_reset_all(data->meta); > > + hbitmap_set(data->hb, start, count); > > + hbitmap_check_meta(data, 0, 0); > > Well, but if you'd do an hbitmap_set(data->hb, start, count + 1), then > it would update meta, right?
Yes. > > I forgot to mention in my reply to patch 7 that the check whether > anything in the range passed to hbitmap_set() has been changed in order > to determine whether all of that range should be set in the meta bitmap > seemed a bit excessive. I don't think this will hurt anyone, but still. It is. It has been on my list to optimize the unnecessary meta update away but I haven't done that yet. Fam > > (So this is not a NACK, just a question.) > > Max >
