| 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 |
| Previous by Date: | PICTYEAR, freebook gratuit de vos photos de vacances !, PICTYEAR |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 05/11] xfs: use EFI refcount consistently in log recovery, Brian Foster |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 01/11] xfs: disentagle EFI release from the extent count, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 01/11] xfs: disentagle EFI release from the extent count, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |