| To: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: odd code in xfs_remove |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:40:23 +0200 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20080411023145.GK103491721@sgi.com> |
| References: | <20080410185445.GA7521@lst.de> <20080411023145.GK103491721@sgi.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:31:45PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > Looks like no harm is done by this and it's a rarely hit corner > case, but it would appear that we should be passing in resblks in > remove if only to avoid a potential transaction reservation > overrun.... Okay, I'll prepare a patch and test it a little. This was the only spurious difference between xfs_remove and xfs_rmdir left, after this we can almost trivially merge them. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] simplify xfs_lock_for_rename, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [REVIEW] Remove unused HAVE_SPLICE macro, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: odd code in xfs_remove, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 2/2] simplify xfs_lock_for_rename, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |