| To: | Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 15/25] xfs: pass bmalloca structure to xfs_bmap_isaeof |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:52:38 -0400 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1315612556.1999.130.camel@doink> |
| References: | <20110824060428.789245205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110824060643.660514652@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1315612556.1999.130.camel@doink> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 06:55:56PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 02:04 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > All the variables xfs_bmap_isaeof() is passed are contained within > > the xfs_bmalloca structure. Pass that instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This looks good. > > Now that the transaction pointer is available in > xfs_bmap_isaeof(), it gets used in the call to > xfs_bmap_last_extent(). It looks to me like > this means btree block buffers will be added to > and removed from the transaction's item list > in xfs_bmap_read_extents(), and that list will > be scanned for these buffers in xfs_trans_read_buf() > (unlike before). > > I don't question whether that's correct, but > is that desirable? Would we be just as well > off *not* providing the transaction pointer? We shouldn't do it, if just to avoid random changes in this patch. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 14/25] xfs: remove xfs_bmap_add_extent, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 18/25] xfs: move allocation ranges inode bmalloca structure, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 15/25] xfs: pass bmalloca structure to xfs_bmap_isaeof, Alex Elder |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 16/25] xfs: move extent records into bmalloca structure, Alex Elder |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |