Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 6/8] ext4: remove obsolete comment from ext4_can_extents_be_merged()
Date:   Tue, 31 Dec 2019 12:04:42 -0600
Message-Id: <20191231180444.46586-7-ebiggers@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20191231180444.46586-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
References: <20191231180444.46586-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

Support for unwritten extents was added to ext4 a long time ago, so
remove a misleading comment that says they're a future feature.

Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
---
 fs/ext4/extents.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index b2dee02ed238..25e6e83cdeca 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -1715,11 +1715,6 @@ static int ext4_can_extents_be_merged(struct inode *inode,
 			le32_to_cpu(ex2->ee_block))
 		return 0;
 
-	/*
-	 * To allow future support for preallocated extents to be added
-	 * as an RO_COMPAT feature, refuse to merge to extents if
-	 * this can result in the top bit of ee_len being set.
-	 */
 	if (ext1_ee_len + ext2_ee_len > EXT_INIT_MAX_LEN)
 		return 0;
 
-- 
2.24.1