Re: [PATCH] quota: Remove use of info_any_dirty()

["Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> Since there is only a single place which uses info_any_dirty() and that
> is a trivial macro, just remove the use of this macro completely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> ---
>  fs/quota.c            |    7 +++++--
>  include/linux/quota.h |    2 --
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/quota.c b/fs/quota.c
> index db1cc9f..f0702f4 100644
> --- a/fs/quota.c
> +++ b/fs/quota.c
> @@ -199,8 +199,11 @@ restart:
>        list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
>                /* This test just improves performance so it needn't be reliable... */
>                for (cnt = 0, dirty = 0; cnt < MAXQUOTAS; cnt++)
> -                       if ((type == cnt || type == -1) && sb_has_quota_enabled(sb, cnt)
> -                           && info_any_dirty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->info[cnt]))
> +                       if ((type == cnt || type == -1)
> +                           && sb_has_quota_enabled(sb, cnt)
> +                           && (info_dirty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->info[cnt])
> +                               || !list_empty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->
> +                                       info[cnt].dqi_dirty_list)))
>                                dirty = 1;

This is really too hideous in my opinion and looks like a candidate
for its own static inline function.

Or you can try to rewrite the boolean expression on multiple lines
using continue, something like:

-               for (cnt = 0, dirty = 0; cnt < MAXQUOTAS; cnt++)
-                       if ((type == cnt || type == -1) && sb_has_quota_enabled(
-                           && info_any_dirty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->info[cnt]))
-                               dirty = 1;
+               for (cnt = 0, dirty = 0; cnt < MAXQUOTAS; cnt++) {
+                       if (type != cnt && type != -1)
+                               continue;
+                       if (!sb_has_quota_enabled(sb, cnt))
+                               continue;
+                       if (!info_any_dirty(&sb_dqopt(sb)->info[cnt]))
+                               continue;
+                       dirty = 1;
+               }

(This uses the original macro, I know. How about moving that from the
header to a new inline function just above this function?)

What do you think?


Vegard

PS: This is a really good clean-up effort. Good work!

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036