On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:46:09AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:37:44PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 06:30:21AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > I'd expect to move it close to stuct xfs_mount, and maybe even merge
> > > > it into that in the long run.
> > >
> > > I guess moving the structure there is fine, but we still want all
> > > the version functions to be shared with userspace, which then makes
> > > for an interesting set of dependencies. Any other ideas?
> > Are they really worth the sharing? If they are worth it we'll
> > need somethign that can expect a xfs_sb/xfs_mount to be defined.
> I suppose we could stop sharing them - they change rarely enough
> and it's only a few lines of code for each new feature that would
> then need to be duplicated. Not a huge burden...
Just a further thought on this - I might keep the per-cpu counters
in the struct mount. That way the to/from disk code only needs to
sum/set the per-cpu counter values to/from the m_sb as they
currently do and so the xfs_sb can remain unchanged for the moment.
That might be a cleaner way to start this patchset, especially as we
already have the per-cpu counter hooks in all the places we need