xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] kill bhv_vnode_t

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kill bhv_vnode_t
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:58:58 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080723215721.GA11049@xxxxxx>
References: <20080723214737.GA10655@xxxxxx> <4887A84D.90701@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20080723215721.GA11049@xxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 04:53:17PM -0500, Russell Cattelan wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Dave complained today that the fate of bhv_vnode_t isn't entirely clear
yet, so I've prepared these two patches to kill it in a minimally
invasive way.  While it causes churn in a lot of areas it does not
affect the generated code at all.

I know a bunch of stuff has gone in that is not very portable, which is fine since
they can be dealt with individually since they are not that intrusive.

Changing bhv_vnode_t to struct inode throughout the code is a pretty big
change and would be a major pain to work around.

Have you actually looed at the patches?  The only places where we use
struct inode outside of linux-2.6/ are:

 - xfs_finish_reclaim:

        Distangles the xfs_inode from Linux inode.  Per defintion
        OS-specific.

 - xfs_sync_inodes:

         Sync code that is quite OS specific.  Dave will move it
         to linux-2.6/ pretty soon.

 - quota/xfs_qm_syscalls.c:

        Similar sync code.

 - xfs_acl.c:

        ACL code with some OS dependencies, and pretty dead with my
        pending patch to use the generic ACL code.

And no, it's not actually a big change.

I guess it's not that big of a change anymore.
I really need to find some time and get fbsd synced up with the latest xfs code.

-Russell


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