xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: add FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: add FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:22:08 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120905064944.GH15292@dastard>
References: <1346097111-4476-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <1346097111-4476-4-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120903051742.GS15292@dastard> <50460BDB.40806@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120905064944.GH15292@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
On 09/05/2012 02:49 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:10:35AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>> On 09/03/2012 01:17 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 03:51:50PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
...
>> This is something I see throughout the code that I haven't quite
>> followed (i.e., using the _t typedefs vs. not). Is the general consensus
>> to move away from typedefs when possible?
> 
> Yes. The Irix code that XFS came from was full of typedefs - part
> of it was to try to strictly type check things that were the same
> storage size or on-disk vs in-memory. We've got other ways of doing
> that better (e.g. the endian checking sparse does), and typedefs
> are generally frowned upon in the main kernel code because they
> often obfuscate the code rather than improve it, so we're
> removing them as we modify code or write new code.
> 

Good to know.

...
>> Ok. I was thinking that we could support the ability to scan by uid/gid
>> regardless of whether quota is enabled, but perhaps there's no purpose
>> to that if a quota isn't enabled.
> 
> I can't really think of a use case for doing this. Making the API
> more expansive in future if someone needs this can be done - it's
> removing stuff that is really hard to do. Hence, don't add it if it
> is not going to be used immediately. :)
> 

Ok.

Brian

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 

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