xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requireme

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:18:29 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, matthew@xxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080626130700.GA24325@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, matthew@xxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <1214455277-6387-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1214455277-6387-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080626074636.GB7064@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080626112133.GJ11558@disturbed> <20080626130700.GA24325@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 09:07:00AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 09:21:33PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Ok, so that involves exactly what? A new header file, a new API name
> > (ideas anyone?) and kerneldoc comments?
> 
> Yes, probably just a new header with properly documented functions.
> Thew two non-trivial ones you added should probably not be inlines,
> btw.

Yeah, they grew a little bigger than expected...

> flush_lock_init/flush_lock/flush_trylock/flush_done/flush_is_locked?

Ok, I was thinking along those lines. I'll redo the patch series
using that interface tomorrow.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>