[0/4] Couple of misc patches

Message

Nikolay Borisov Feb. 17, 2021, 1:12 p.m. UTC

Here are 4 patches which are independent of one another. The first 2 just
change two more function to take btrfs_inode. Patch 3 just extends the usage of
in_range which renders offset_in_entry redundant thus removing the function.
Final patch just restructures btrfs_inc_block_group_ro to use a do{} while() loo
rather than a label-based. This doesn't introduce extra nesting so I don't know
why the label approach was chosen in the first place.

Nikolay Borisov (4):
  btrfs: Make btrfs_replace_file_extents take btrfs_inode
  btrfs: Make find_desired_extent take btrfs_inode
  btrfs: Replace offset_in_entry with in_range
  btrfs: Replace opencoded while loop with proper construct

 fs/btrfs/block-group.c  | 42 ++++++++++++++------------
 fs/btrfs/ctree.h        |  5 ++--
 fs/btrfs/file.c         | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 fs/btrfs/inode.c        |  2 +-
 fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 19 +++---------
 fs/btrfs/reflink.c      | 10 +++----
 6 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)

--
2.25.1

Comments

David Sterba Feb. 17, 2021, 5:47 p.m. UTC | #1

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 03:12:46PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Here are 4 patches which are independent of one another. The first 2 just
> change two more function to take btrfs_inode. Patch 3 just extends the usage of
> in_range which renders offset_in_entry redundant thus removing the function.
> Final patch just restructures btrfs_inc_block_group_ro to use a do{} while() loo
> rather than a label-based. This doesn't introduce extra nesting so I don't know
> why the label approach was chosen in the first place.
> 
> Nikolay Borisov (4):
>   btrfs: Make btrfs_replace_file_extents take btrfs_inode
>   btrfs: Make find_desired_extent take btrfs_inode
>   btrfs: Replace offset_in_entry with in_range
>   btrfs: Replace opencoded while loop with proper construct

Added to topic branch, will be in for-next once merge window is over.
Thanks.