xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] xfs: allow linkat() on O_TMPFILE files

To: Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] xfs: allow linkat() on O_TMPFILE files
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:31:18 -0800
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfstests <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAEH94Lixcey+PYGsLf3waeK1sv9QYriacMNe+pen-3jor3fG4g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1385379154-3802-1-git-send-email-zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> <1385379154-3802-5-git-send-email-zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> <20131125214611.GI8803@dastard> <CAEH94Lixcey+PYGsLf3waeK1sv9QYriacMNe+pen-3jor3fG4g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:34:43PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> > Uggh. For the small amount of extra space needed for the unlinked
> > list reservation, I would simply add it to the tr_link reservation
> > and be done with it. That gets rid of the need for the noise here.
> >
> >
> > As per above, fold this into xfs_calc_link_reservation() by adding a:
> >
> >
> >                 + xfs_calc_iunlink_remove_resv(mp);
> This way seems to not work...
> In xfs_calc_link_reservation(), How to determine if it is for one
> regular file or O_TMPFILE file? since this functions is only passed in
> mp?

The way I understand Dave above is that you should always reserve
the higher amount.

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