From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=26c2=WZ=lists.ozlabs.org=linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no
	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 5F491C3A59F
	for <linux-erofs@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:42:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80AB2080F
	for <linux-erofs@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:42:43 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D80AB2080F
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46K6Lk32F0zDsNg
	for <linux-erofs@archiver.kernel.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:42:38 +1000 (AEST)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com
 (client-ip=45.249.212.187; helo=huawei.com;
 envelope-from=gaoxiang25@huawei.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46K6Lb18zmzDqQ8
 for <linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:42:29 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53])
 by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4648CDBF252A50D01A48;
 Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:42:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) by
 DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:42:24 +0800
Received: from architecture4 (10.140.130.215) by
 dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server
 (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id
 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:42:24 +0800
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:41:37 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/24] erofs: add on-disk layout
Message-ID: <20190829154136.GA129582@architecture4>
References: <20190802125347.166018-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
 <20190802125347.166018-2-gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
 <20190829095954.GB20598@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190829095954.GB20598@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-Originating-IP: [10.140.130.215]
X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.99) To
 dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108)
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system <linux-erofs.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linux-erofs>,
 <mailto:linux-erofs-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-erofs-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linux-erofs>,
 <mailto:linux-erofs-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
 linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
 "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>,
 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Miao Xie <miaoxie@huawei.com>,
 Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
 Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linux-erofs"
 <linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

Hi Christoph,

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 02:59:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

[]

> 
> > +static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode)
> > +{
> > +	if (datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION)
> > +		return true;
> > +	return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY;
> > +}
> 
> This looks like a really obsfucated way to write:
> 
> 	return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION ||
> 		datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY;

Add a word about this, the above approach is not horrible if more
datamode add here and comments, e.g

static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode)
{
	/* has z_erofs_map_header */
	if (datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION)
		return true;
	/* some blablabla */
	if (datamode == (1) )
		return true;
	/* some blablablabla */
	if (datamode == (2) )
		return true;
	/* no z_erofs_map_header */
	return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY;
}

vs.

static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode)
{
	/* has z_erofs_map_header */
	return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION ||
		/* some blablabla */
	       datamode == (1) ||
	       	/* some blablablabla */
	       datamode == (2) ||
	        /* no z_erofs_map_header */
	       datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY;
}

I have no idea which one is better.
Anyway, if you still like the form, I will change it.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang