On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> Very often we have the checksums for an extent spread in multiple items
> in the checksums tree, and currently the algorithm to delete them starts
> by looking for them one by one
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
>> From: Filipe Manana
>>
>> Very often we have the checksums for an extent spread in multiple items
>> in the checksums tree, and
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:02:45PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Filipe Manana
> >
> > Very often we have the checksums for an extent spread in multiple items
> > in the checksums tree, and
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> Very often we have the checksums for an extent spread in multiple items
> in the checksums tree, and currently the algorithm to delete them starts
> by looking for them one by one
From: Filipe Manana
Very often we have the checksums for an extent spread in multiple items
in the checksums tree, and currently the algorithm to delete them starts
by looking for them one by one and then deleting them one by one, which
is not optimal since each deletion