xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 15/25] xfs: pass bmalloca structure to xfs_bmap_isaeof

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>