xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 06/13] xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant.

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant.
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:14:03 +1000
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121001174410.GK13214@xxxxxxx>
References: <1348807485-20165-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1348807485-20165-7-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120928123443.GD14284@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20121001174410.GK13214@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:44:10PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 08:34:43AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >  /*
> > > + * Flush all dirty data to disk. Must not be called while holding an 
> > > XFS_ILOCK
> > 
> > slightly too long line.
> 
> It comes out at 78 columns when the patch is applied.  Not a problem.
> 
> > > + * or a page lock.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline void
> > > +xfs_flush_inodes(struct xfs_inode *ip)
> > > +{
> > > + writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(VFS_I(ip)->i_sb, WB_REASON_FS_FREE_SPACE);
> > > +}
> > 
> > Passing an inode here seems very odd, an xfs_mount would be the proper
> > interface. 
> > 
> > Looks fine modulo these cosmetic changes, so:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> 
> I cleaned up these cosmetic changes on your behalf.  Here is the result:

Looks good. Thanks for doing this, Ben.

FWIW, The patch I just posted to change
writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle() to sync_inodes_sb() will need
massaging to apply to your tree now. I'll update it if you push your
tree out to oss.sgi.com before taking it...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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