[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] fs:ext4:cleanup: Remove superfluous code

[Simon Glass]

Hi Lukasz,

On 5 May 2014 15:10, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski at majess.pl> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2014 08:24:22 -0600
> Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Lukasz,
>>
>> On 4 May 2014 23:20, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski at samsung.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Simon,
>> >
>> >> On 30 April 2014 03:39, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski at samsung.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Code responsible for handling situation when ext4 has block size
>> >> > of 1024B can be ordered to take less space.
>> >> >
>> >> > This patch does that for ext4 common and write files.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski at samsung.com>
>> >>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> >>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  fs/ext4/ext4_common.c |    6 ++----
>> >> >  fs/ext4/ext4_write.c  |   50
>> >> > ++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- 2 files
>> >> > changed, 18 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
>> >> > index 02da75c..62e2e80 100644
>> >> > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
>> >> > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> > @@ -181,10 +179,8 @@ static void
>> >> > delete_double_indirect_block(struct ext2_inode *inode) break;
>> >> >
>> >> >                         debug("DICB releasing %u\n", *di_buffer);
>> >> > -                       if (fs->blksz != 1024) {
>> >> > -                               bg_idx = (*di_buffer) /
>> >> > blk_per_grp;
>> >> > -                       } else {
>> >> > -                               bg_idx = (*di_buffer) /
>> >> > blk_per_grp;
>> >> > +                       bg_idx = (*di_buffer) / blk_per_grp;
>> >>
>> >> You don't need the brackets here (or below).
>> >
>> > Maybe the GIT formatting is a bit misleading, but I've double
>> > checked and it seems that those parenthesis are necessary here.
>>
>> OK. What is di_buffer such that (*di_buffer) works but *di_buffer
>> doesn't?
>
> It is hard to admit :-), but I've misunderstood you. I thought that you
> are talking about the {} parentheses.
>
> I will check the code tomorrow and prepare proper patch.

Ah, sorry I wasn't at all clear on that.

Regards,
Simon