xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 01/11] xfs: disentagle EFI release from the extent count

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] xfs: disentagle EFI release from the extent count
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:37:27 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150809073641.GA3163@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1438883072-28706-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <1438883072-28706-2-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150809073641.GA3163@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 12:36:41AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:44:22PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> 
> -       __xfs_efi_release(efip);
> +     xfs_efi_release(efip);
> 
> Can you explain in the changelog why this is safe?
> 

I thought it did. I'll try to elaborate.

> 
> > -xfs_efi_release(xfs_efi_log_item_t *efip,
> > -           uint                    nextents)
> > +xfs_efi_release(struct xfs_efi_log_item    *efip)
> 
> Can you use normal XFS function formatting here? e.g.
> 
> xfs_efi_release(
>       struct xfs_efi_log_item         *efip)
> 

Ok.

> 
> As a follow on we should be able to remove atomic_inc_return and
> replace it with a local iterator in xfs_bmap_finish().
> 

I'm not sure what you mean here...

Brian

> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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