Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:41:37 +0800 | From | Gao Xiang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 01/24] erofs: add on-disk layout |
| |
Hi Christoph,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 02:59:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[]
> > > +static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode) > > +{ > > + if (datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION) > > + return true; > > + return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY; > > +} > > This looks like a really obsfucated way to write: > > return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION || > datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY;
Add a word about this, the above approach is not horrible if more datamode add here and comments, e.g
static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode) { /* has z_erofs_map_header */ if (datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION) return true; /* some blablabla */ if (datamode == (1) ) return true; /* some blablablabla */ if (datamode == (2) ) return true; /* no z_erofs_map_header */ return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY; }
vs.
static bool erofs_inode_is_data_compressed(unsigned int datamode) { /* has z_erofs_map_header */ return datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION || /* some blablabla */ datamode == (1) || /* some blablablabla */ datamode == (2) || /* no z_erofs_map_header */ datamode == EROFS_INODE_FLAT_COMPRESSION_LEGACY; }
I have no idea which one is better. Anyway, if you still like the form, I will change it.
Thanks, Gao Xiang
| |