xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 07/71] xfs: define tracepoints for refcount btree activities

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/71] xfs: define tracepoints for refcount btree activities
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:20:25 -0700
Cc: david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160906145446.GB24287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <147216791538.867.12413509832420924168.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <147216796400.867.3093949883691867882.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160906145446.GB24287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 07:54:46AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +#ifndef XFS_REFCOUNT_IREC_PLACEHOLDER
> > +#define XFS_REFCOUNT_IREC_PLACEHOLDER
> > +/* Placeholder definition to avoid breaking bisectability. */
> > +struct xfs_refcount_irec {
> > +   xfs_agblock_t   rc_startblock;  /* starting block number */
> > +   xfs_extlen_t    rc_blockcount;  /* count of free blocks */
> > +   xfs_nlink_t     rc_refcount;    /* number of inodes linked here */
> > +};
> > +#endif
> 
> I didn't really understand the point earlier either - why can't
> you just merge the patch adding the tracepoints into that defining
> the structures and calling the tracepoints?  That would avoid that
> whole exercise.

Originally I did it that way so my eyes wouldn't bleed every time I
looked at the follow-on patch, but you're right that these can be
consolidated now.

--D

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