lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] squashfs: implement readahead
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:36 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 07:04:08PM +0800, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> > > + loff_t req_end = readahead_pos(ractl) + readahead_length(ractl);
> > > + loff_t start = readahead_pos(ractl) &~ mask;
> > > + size_t len = readahead_length(ractl) + readahead_pos(ractl) - start;
> > > + struct squashfs_page_actor *actor;
> > > + unsigned int nr_pages = 0;
> > > + struct page **pages;
> > > + u64 block = 0;
> > > + int bsize, res, i, index;
> > > + int file_end = i_size_read(inode) >> msblk->block_log;
> > > + unsigned int max_pages = 1UL << shift;
> > > +
> > > + readahead_expand(ractl, start, (len | mask) + 1);
> > > +
> > > + if (readahead_pos(ractl) + readahead_length(ractl) < req_end ||
> > > + file_end == 0)
> > > + return;
>
> What's the first half of this condition supposed to be checking for?
> It seems to be checking whether readahead_expand() shrunk the range
> covered by the ractl, but readahead_expand() never does that, so I'm
> confused why you're checking for it.

hi Matthew,

This is to check if readahead_expand() expands as much as it's requested.
I didn't encounter the mismatch so far in my testing. If this check is
not necessary, it can be removed.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-16 14:49    [W:0.913 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site