* Re: [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks
2013-02-06 20:22 [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks Wang Shilong
@ 2013-02-06 6:56 ` Zheng Liu
2013-02-06 18:29 ` Theodore Ts'o
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Zheng Liu @ 2013-02-06 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang Shilong; +Cc: Jan Kara, linux-ext4
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:22:47PM -0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
> It can be guranteed that inode->i_sb should not be null in vfs.
> So here the check about it is overhead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>
> sorry about wrong format patch, i will resend it later.
Hi Shilong,
If you want to re-send a patch series, add [RESEND] in subject, please.
Because it could make us know which is the latest one. :-)
Regards,
- Zheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks
2013-02-06 6:56 ` Zheng Liu
@ 2013-02-06 18:29 ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-02-07 15:22 ` shilong wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2013-02-06 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang Shilong, Jan Kara, linux-ext4
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:56:46PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
>
> If you want to re-send a patch series, add [RESEND] in subject, please.
> Because it could make us know which is the latest one. :-)
Ideally, use RESEND if you haven't changed the patch series since the
last time you've sent it. If you have changed it, please use [PATCH
v2], [PATCH v3], etc.
Thanks,
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks
@ 2013-02-06 20:22 Wang Shilong
2013-02-06 6:56 ` Zheng Liu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Wang Shilong @ 2013-02-06 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara; +Cc: linux-ext4
From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
It can be guranteed that inode->i_sb should not be null in vfs.
So here the check about it is overhead.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
sorry about wrong format patch, i will resend it later.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks
2013-02-06 18:29 ` Theodore Ts'o
@ 2013-02-07 15:22 ` shilong wang
2013-02-08 4:54 ` Zheng Liu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: shilong wang @ 2013-02-07 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Ts'o, Jan Kara, gnehzuil.liu; +Cc: linux-ext4
2013/2/7 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:56:46PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
>>
>> If you want to re-send a patch series, add [RESEND] in subject, please.
>> Because it could make us know which is the latest one. :-)
>
> Ideally, use RESEND if you haven't changed the patch series since the
> last time you've sent it. If you have changed it, please use [PATCH
> v2], [PATCH v3], etc.
I get it..
Thanks, thanks every one for teaching me so much...
Now i am trying to do something for ext4 development in my leisure time..
Since i don't know anything about filesystem before.. i have to study
about it from minix to ext2..ext3..ext4..btrfs..
However, it still seems a little hard for me to figure everything out
just by reading code... So i wonder where i can get
some papers or articles about the new concept of filesystems.. for
example extent management or something else for ext4..etc
Maybe it helps a lot for me...
Thanks,
Wang
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks
2013-02-07 15:22 ` shilong wang
@ 2013-02-08 4:54 ` Zheng Liu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Zheng Liu @ 2013-02-08 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shilong wang; +Cc: Theodore Ts'o, Jan Kara, linux-ext4
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:22:21PM +0800, shilong wang wrote:
> 2013/2/7 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:56:46PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> >>
> >> If you want to re-send a patch series, add [RESEND] in subject, please.
> >> Because it could make us know which is the latest one. :-)
> >
> > Ideally, use RESEND if you haven't changed the patch series since the
> > last time you've sent it. If you have changed it, please use [PATCH
> > v2], [PATCH v3], etc.
>
> I get it..
> Thanks, thanks every one for teaching me so much...
>
> Now i am trying to do something for ext4 development in my leisure time..
> Since i don't know anything about filesystem before.. i have to study
> about it from minix to ext2..ext3..ext4..btrfs..
>
> However, it still seems a little hard for me to figure everything out
> just by reading code... So i wonder where i can get
> some papers or articles about the new concept of filesystems.. for
> example extent management or something else for ext4..etc
> Maybe it helps a lot for me...
This link (https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page) might be
useful for you.
Regards,
- Zheng
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks
@ 2013-02-06 20:01 Wang Shilong
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Wang Shilong @ 2013-02-06 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara; +Cc: linux-ext4
From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
It can be guranteed that inode->i_sb should not be null in vfs.
So here the check about it is overhead.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
fs/ext2/balloc.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext2/balloc.c b/fs/ext2/balloc.c
index 1c36139..22993a0 100644
--- a/fs/ext2/balloc.c
+++ b/fs/ext2/balloc.c
@@ -1239,10 +1239,6 @@ ext2_fsblk_t ext2_new_blocks(struct inode *inode, ext2_fsblk_t goal,
*errp = -ENOSPC;
sb = inode->i_sb;
- if (!sb) {
- printk("ext2_new_blocks: nonexistent device");
- return 0;
- }
/*
* Check quota for allocation of this block.
--
1.7.11.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks
2013-02-06 6:14 Wang shilong
@ 2013-02-06 12:46 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2013-02-06 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang shilong; +Cc: jack, linux-ext4, Wang Shilong
On Wed 06-02-13 14:14:26, Wang shilong wrote:
> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
> It can be guranteed that inode->i_sb should not be null in vfs.
> So here the check about it is overhead.
This patch looks good. I've added it to my tree.
Honza
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> fs/ext2/balloc.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext2/balloc.c b/fs/ext2/balloc.c
> index 1c36139..22993a0 100644
> --- a/fs/ext2/balloc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext2/balloc.c
> @@ -1239,10 +1239,6 @@ ext2_fsblk_t ext2_new_blocks(struct inode *inode, ext2_fsblk_t goal,
>
> *errp = -ENOSPC;
> sb = inode->i_sb;
> - if (!sb) {
> - printk("ext2_new_blocks: nonexistent device");
> - return 0;
> - }
>
> /*
> * Check quota for allocation of this block.
> --
> 1.7.11.7
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks
@ 2013-02-06 6:14 Wang shilong
2013-02-06 12:46 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Wang shilong @ 2013-02-06 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jack; +Cc: linux-ext4, Wang shilong, Wang Shilong
From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
It can be guranteed that inode->i_sb should not be null in vfs.
So here the check about it is overhead.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
fs/ext2/balloc.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext2/balloc.c b/fs/ext2/balloc.c
index 1c36139..22993a0 100644
--- a/fs/ext2/balloc.c
+++ b/fs/ext2/balloc.c
@@ -1239,10 +1239,6 @@ ext2_fsblk_t ext2_new_blocks(struct inode *inode, ext2_fsblk_t goal,
*errp = -ENOSPC;
sb = inode->i_sb;
- if (!sb) {
- printk("ext2_new_blocks: nonexistent device");
- return 0;
- }
/*
* Check quota for allocation of this block.
--
1.7.11.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-08 4:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-02-06 20:22 [PATCH 1/3] Ext2: remove the overhead check about sb in the function ext2_new_blocks Wang Shilong
2013-02-06 6:56 ` Zheng Liu
2013-02-06 18:29 ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-02-07 15:22 ` shilong wang
2013-02-08 4:54 ` Zheng Liu
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-02-06 20:01 Wang Shilong
2013-02-06 6:14 Wang shilong
2013-02-06 12:46 ` Jan Kara
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.