Re: [PATCH 1/1] fat: improve sync performance by grouping writes in fat_mirror_bhs [really unmangled]

[Jörn Engel <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>]

I didn't pay too much attention, but found some low hanging fruits.

On Thu, 26 October 2006 07:59:42 -0400, Holden Karau wrote:
>  
> -/* FIXME: We can write the blocks as more big chunk. */
>  static int fat_mirror_bhs(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
> -			  int nr_bhs)
> +			  int nr_bhs ) {
> +  return fat_mirror_bhs_optw(sb , bhs , nr_bhs, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static int fat_mirror_bhs_optw(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
> +			       int nr_bhs , int wait)

Does this compile without warnings?  Looks as if you should reverse
the order of the two functions.

>  {
>  	struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
> -	struct buffer_head *c_bh;
> +	struct buffer_head *c_bh[nr_bhs];
>  	int err, n, copy;
>  
> +	/* Always wait if mounted -o sync */
> +	if (sb->s_flags & MS_SYNCHRONOUS ) {
> +	  wait = 1;
> +	}

Coding style.  Use a tab for indentation and don't use braces for
single-line conditional statements.

> +
>  	err = 0;
> +	err = fat_sync_bhs_optw( bhs  , nr_bhs , wait);

The err=0; is superfluous now, isn't it?

> +	if (err)
> +	  goto error;

Indentation.

Jörn

-- 
Fantasy is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited,
while fantasy embraces the whole world.
-- Albert Einstein
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/