Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 15:54:57 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext2_set_link()->ext2_put_page() question
Message-ID: <20210325145457.GE13673@quack2.suse.cz>
References: <20210323004948.GR3014244@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210323004948.GR3014244@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 22-03-21 17:49:48, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Jan,
> 
> Why does ext2_set_link() need to call ext2_put_page()?
> 
> I don't see any reason that we could not match up the ext2_put_page() calls
> with the ext2_find_entry().
> 
> Similarly am I missing something by moving the ext2_put_page() out of
> ext2_delete_entry()?
> 
> See below patch.

I agree that your patch improves readability. But please fixup comments
about releasing a page as well. Thanks!

> I'm in the process of changing the kmap() calls in ext2_[get|put]_page() into
> kmap_local_page() and I noticed this imbalance.  It does not really save me
> anything because I need to pass the kaddr into these calls but IMO it makes the
> code a bit easier to follow.
> 
> If you agree I will get a patch together to submit with the kmap_local_page()
> patch.

OK :).

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR