> On 11 Nov 2016, at 22:28, Jaromír Doleček <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2016-11-11 11:52 GMT+01:00 J. Hannken-Illjes <[email protected]>: >> Returning a pointer to an arbitrary list element and using it >> later is bad design. Would be better to define as: >> >> wapbl_unregister_deallocation(struct wapbl *wl, daddr_t blk, int len) >> { > > I simply want to have it O(1). I think it is useful to keep the error > path there fast, as it would be quite common for wapbl case. Also just > passing the (opaque) pointer makes it simpler.
This error path (call UFS_WAPBL_UNREGISTER_DEALLOCATION()) is not that common and runs not more than once during one run of ffs_truncate(). I don't see a need to have it O(1). -- J. Hannken-Illjes - [email protected] - TU Braunschweig (Germany)
