Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Sep 2013 10:53:34 -0400 | From | Theodore Ts'o <> | Subject | Re: ext4: cache all of an extent tree's leaf block upon reading |
| |
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:37:49AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > +void ext4_es_cache_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk, > > + ext4_lblk_t len, ext4_fsblk_t pblk, > > + unsigned int status) > > +{ > > + struct extent_status *es; > > + struct extent_status newes; > > + ext4_lblk_t end = lblk + len - 1; > > + > > + newes.es_lblk = lblk; > > + newes.es_len = len; > > + ext4_es_store_pblock(&newes, pblk); > > > ext4_es_store_pblock or's the pblk with the existing contents of the struct member. > (albeit masked with ES_MASK) > > Should there be a > > newes.es_pblk = 0; > > up there too ?
The next line after ext4_es_store_pblock() is:
ext4_es_store_status(&newes, status);
This will set remaining ES_WRITTEN | ES_UNWRITTEN... bits.
So the only reason to add a line explicitly setting es_pblk to zero would be to suppress a warning from some insufficiently smart static code analysis tool. I didn't see a warning from gcc, but it's possible that this is something which is causing Coverity or some other code scanner heartburn.
Cheers,
- Ted
| |