| Message ID | 1393853463-26215-1-git-send-email-bo.li.liu@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 2014?03?03? 21:31, Liu Bo wrote: > It's unnecessary to update key's value, and remove it to keep code clean. > > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/send.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > index 3fe4d6e..a5f9626 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > @@ -5180,10 +5180,6 @@ static int full_send_tree(struct send_ctx *sctx) > if (ret < 0) > goto out; > > - key.objectid = found_key.objectid; > - key.type = found_key.type; > - key.offset = found_key.offset + 1; > - > ret = btrfs_next_item(send_root, path); > if (ret < 0) > goto out; Hi Liu and all, I think the statements may better be reserved. I noticed that there is an "goto join_trans" above. I think we may hit it in the next round and exec from the "join_trans" down, then these 3 assignments effect. Sorry, I am not very sure whether this situation could happen, please ignore me if I am making noise. -H.A. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:53:45PM +0800, gHcAgree wrote: > > On 2014?03?03? 21:31, Liu Bo wrote: > >It's unnecessary to update key's value, and remove it to keep code clean. > > > >Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> > >--- > > fs/btrfs/send.c | 4 ---- > > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >index 3fe4d6e..a5f9626 100644 > >--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > >+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >@@ -5180,10 +5180,6 @@ static int full_send_tree(struct send_ctx *sctx) > > if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > >- key.objectid = found_key.objectid; > >- key.type = found_key.type; > >- key.offset = found_key.offset + 1; > >- > > ret = btrfs_next_item(send_root, path); > > if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > Hi Liu and all, > I think the statements may better be reserved. I noticed that there > is an "goto join_trans" above. I think we may hit it in the next > round and exec from the "join_trans" down, then these 3 assignments > effect. Yeah, I think you're right, with btrfs-next, we should keep these assignments. -liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c index 3fe4d6e..a5f9626 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c @@ -5180,10 +5180,6 @@ static int full_send_tree(struct send_ctx *sctx) if (ret < 0) goto out; - key.objectid = found_key.objectid; - key.type = found_key.type; - key.offset = found_key.offset + 1; - ret = btrfs_next_item(send_root, path); if (ret < 0) goto out;
It's unnecessary to update key's value, and remove it to keep code clean. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/send.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)