Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] f2fs: extent cache: support unaligned extent
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chao Yu <chao.yu@linux.dev>
References: <20210803023912.26667-1-chao@kernel.org>
 <YQmNzBofsqv/zEdb@google.com>
From:   Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <d08ada1d-b0a3-6ed8-449b-10bf2518f5ba@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:55:01 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YQmNzBofsqv/zEdb@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2021/8/4 2:41, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> @@ -247,6 +247,11 @@ static struct extent_node *__attach_extent_node(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>   	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&en->list);
>>   	en->et = et;
>>   
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_FS_COMPRESSION
> 
> Can we avoid the above ifdef?

What do you mean by "avoid", getting rid of CONFIG_F2FS_FS_COMPRESSION directly?
or wrapping codes into function and define as below?

#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_FS_COMPRESSION
void foo() { implementation here }
#else
void foot() {}
#endif

>>   static inline bool __is_extent_mergeable(struct extent_info *back,
>> -						struct extent_info *front)
>> +				struct extent_info *front, bool unaligned)
>>   {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_FS_COMPRESSION
> 
> Can we avoid this ifdef?