From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ext4: Properly initialize the buffer_head state Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 19:57:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20090510235741.GA3980@mit.edu> References: <1241692770-22547-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4A02FC3A.9000806@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:52912 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752936AbZEKIWE (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 04:22:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A02FC3A.9000806@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:20:26AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > These buffer_heads are allocated on stack and are > > used only to make get_blocks calls. So we can set the > > b_state to 0 > > > > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V > > I'd noticed this too, thanks for fixing up. Is this just a clean-up, or does this fix a bug? It wasn't obvious the patch description. (I'm not a big fan of Ingo's 'Impact: ' header, but it is good to make sure the patch description explains the impact of a patch.) In the long run, we should really look at cleaning up the get_blocks* interfaces so they don't use buffer_head when all they're really doing is passing back a block number. All aside from the confusion it causes, it also bloats our stack usage. - Ted