linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: reduce return argument of btrfs_chunk_readonly
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:58:30 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <249bb6d8-4be1-90b6-1893-c7d0adef1a0b@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <da5074a6-c0bb-a844-bbfe-c57f38bba876@suse.com>

On 11/08/2021 15:15, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10.08.21 г. 18:48, Anand Jain wrote:
>> btrfs_chunk_readonly() checks if the given chunk is writeable. It returns
>> 1 for readonly, and 0 for writeable. So the return argument type bool
>> shall suffice instead of the current type int.
>>
>> Also, rename btrfs_chunk_readonly() to btrfs_chunk_writeable() as we check
>> if the bg is writeable, and helps to keep the logic at the parent function
>> simpler.


> I don't see how the logic is kept simpler, given that you just invert
> it.

  IMO it is simpler to read. No? In btrfs_chunk_readonly(), we consider a
  chunk is readonly when the device it is on has _no_ DEV_STATE_WRITEABLE
  flag set.  So rename to btrfs_chunk_writeable() is correct. We also use
  readonly to the filesystem.

  I will wait to see if David also has the same opinion. I am ok to drop
  this part.

> IMO changing the argument to bool without renaming the function is a
> sufficient change and it will result in a lot smaller diff.

  OK.

Thx, Anand

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-12  8:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20210824052742.6E-Km1SWTTGkqvPnsnUECQI3TIDMt6LfxrwXZGZrNE8@z>
2021-08-24  5:27 ` [PATCH RESEND] btrfs: reduce return argument of btrfs_chunk_readonly Anand Jain
2021-08-11  7:15   ` [PATCH] " Nikolay Borisov
2021-08-12  8:58     ` Anand Jain [this message]
2021-08-26 18:10       ` David Sterba

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=249bb6d8-4be1-90b6-1893-c7d0adef1a0b@oracle.com \
    --to=anand.jain@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nborisov@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).