From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0635BC4338F for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:28:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C416112F for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:28:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237996AbhHER26 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2021 13:28:58 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:50410 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237413AbhHER25 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2021 13:28:57 -0400 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E90620250; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1628184522; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=npaI/wqSlbA8SFx3VJYKd1Ve+/uiXLQbnwfIj6cjiLA=; b=RaUVc3S1g8FE7rarUxvz4kfZAaCWvSQuBpbf4+2SS055hntga7ka03suUcmQ52tlUr0EPv MPYYh5Pg48W1JeR5u7ewOan0XchSG8x0UbrWbCcIqIIm0O/JUyWMpYp99vu//I7YliuPGE Xg3Jg8dILcarSZl8x1xjazwROaOktiE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1628184522; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=npaI/wqSlbA8SFx3VJYKd1Ve+/uiXLQbnwfIj6cjiLA=; b=yTtqbGMi8EC4Jo3uvQp+/hZh83XJ13yz7Qiinw5tP0Sz3BdyI/LLd80om/HRqdKaNUtgvl DWKMpvyHdfdcRgBQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD05613DB9; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:28:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id zU9oJcgfDGGSGAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Thu, 05 Aug 2021 17:28:40 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] btrfs: Reorder btrfs_find_item arguments From: Marcos Paulo de Souza To: Qu Wenruo , Marcos Paulo de Souza , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: dsterba@suse.com, nborisov@suse.com Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 14:28:22 -0300 In-Reply-To: References: <20210804184854.10696-1-mpdesouza@suse.com> <20210804184854.10696-2-mpdesouza@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 10:16 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > On 2021/8/5 上午2:48, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote: > > It's more natural do use objectid, type and offset, in this order, > > when > > dealing with btrfs keys. > > I'm completely fine with this part. > > > No functional changes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza > > --- > > fs/btrfs/backref.c | 9 ++++----- > > fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 2 +- > > fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c > > index f735b8798ba1..9e92faaafa02 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c > > @@ -1691,8 +1691,8 @@ char *btrfs_ref_to_path(struct btrfs_root > > *fs_root, struct btrfs_path *path, > > btrfs_tree_read_unlock(eb); > > free_extent_buffer(eb); > > } > > - ret = btrfs_find_item(fs_root, path, parent, 0, > > - BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY, &found_key); > > + ret = btrfs_find_item(fs_root, path, parent, > > BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY, > > + 0, &found_key); > > if (ret > 0) > > ret = -ENOENT; > > if (ret) > > @@ -2063,9 +2063,8 @@ static int iterate_inode_refs(u64 inum, > > struct btrfs_root *fs_root, > > struct btrfs_key found_key; > > > > while (!ret) { > > - ret = btrfs_find_item(fs_root, path, inum, > > - parent ? parent + 1 : 0, > > BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY, > > - &found_key); > > + ret = btrfs_find_item(fs_root, path, inum, > > BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY, > > + parent ? parent + 1 : 0, &found_key); > > > > if (ret < 0) > > break; > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c > > index 84627cbd5b5b..c0002ec9c025 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c > > @@ -1528,7 +1528,7 @@ setup_nodes_for_search(struct > > btrfs_trans_handle *trans, > > } > > > > int btrfs_find_item(struct btrfs_root *fs_root, struct btrfs_path > > *path, > > - u64 iobjectid, u64 ioff, u8 key_type, > > + u64 iobjectid, u8 key_type, u64 ioff, > > struct btrfs_key *found_key) > > But the @found_key part makes me wonder. > > Is it really needed? > > The caller has @path and return value. If we return 0, we know it's > an > exact match, no need to grab the key. > If we return 1, caller can easily grab the key using @path (if they > really need). > > So can we also remove @found_key parameter, and add some comment on > the > function? I believe that the function name is misleading. Maybe we can adjust it to something like btrfs_find_item_offset, since it validates if the found item has the same objectid and type of the searched key. This is very common for a lot of the callers, which expect to receive the same objectid and type, and each caller validate the offset as required. Maybe we can add a comment and change the function name to reflect all aspects of how it works. What do you think? Thanks, Marcos > > Thanks, > Qu > > > { > > int ret; > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h > > index a898257ad2b5..0a971e98f5f9 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h > > @@ -2858,7 +2858,7 @@ int btrfs_duplicate_item(struct > > btrfs_trans_handle *trans, > > struct btrfs_path *path, > > const struct btrfs_key *new_key); > > int btrfs_find_item(struct btrfs_root *fs_root, struct btrfs_path > > *path, > > - u64 inum, u64 ioff, u8 key_type, struct btrfs_key > > *found_key); > > + u64 inum, u8 key_type, u64 ioff, struct btrfs_key > > *found_key); > > int btrfs_search_slot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct > > btrfs_root *root, > > const struct btrfs_key *key, struct btrfs_path > > *p, > > int ins_len, int cow); > >