On 08/21/2012 10:33 PM, David Sterba wrote:

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:30:14PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:

quoted

IMO the following is better, just make use of the original check.  If you agree with this,
I'll send it as a patch :)

I think it's cleaner to keep all flags that get inherited from the
directory -> new file at one place, ie btrfs_inherit_iflags(), than
having them scattered over the code.

quoted

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 6e8f416..d4e58df 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c

@@ -4721,8 +4721,10 @@ static struct inode *btrfs_new_inode(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
 		if (btrfs_test_opt(root, NODATASUM))
 			BTRFS_I(inode)->flags |= BTRFS_INODE_NODATASUM;
 		if (btrfs_test_opt(root, NODATACOW) ||
-		    (BTRFS_I(dir)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW))
+		    (BTRFS_I(dir)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW)) {
 			BTRFS_I(inode)->flags |= BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW;
+			BTRFS_I(inode)->flags |= BTRFS_INODE_NODATASUM;
+		}
 	}

And even better, this particular check of dir->flags should be removed
entirely, because it duplicates the equivalent in
btrfs_inherit_iflags().

Fine, it's cleaner now.

thanks,
liubo

quoted

 
 	insert_inode_hash(inode);

david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html