Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: send: fix invalid commands for inodes with changed type but same gen - Roman Anasal

From: Roman Anasal | BDSU <roman.anasal@bdsu.de>
To: "dsterba@suse.cz" <dsterba@suse.cz>
Cc: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: send: fix invalid commands for inodes with changed type but same gen
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:31:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0363f5435d09d6fc0fdf4e680b408bfc96c8a698.camel@bdsu.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210111211529.GE6430@twin.jikos.cz>

On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 22:15 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:02:43PM +0100, Roman Anasal wrote:
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
> > @@ -6299,12 +6299,18 @@ static int changed_inode(struct send_ctx
> > *sctx,
> >  		right_gen = btrfs_inode_generation(sctx->right_path-
> > >nodes[0],
> >  				right_ii);
> >  
> > +		u64 left_type = S_IFMT & btrfs_inode_mode(
> > +				sctx->left_path->nodes[0], left_ii);
> > +		u64 right_type = S_IFMT & btrfs_inode_mode(
> > +				sctx->right_path->nodes[0], right_ii);
> 
> Minor note, we don't use the declarations mixed with code, so the
> variables need to be declared separatelly, but I can fix that unless
> there's another reason to update and resend the patches.

Ah yes, I was quite unsure where to put the declarations and then
wanted to put them as close as possible to the usage and decided to put
them in the same "scope".
But just now I realised I was still thinking in the wrong programming
language and there is no "if-block-scope" in C :D

So I updated the commit respectively and can resend if needed.