| To: | Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 01/11] xfs: disentagle EFI release from the extent count |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 9 Aug 2015 00:36:41 -0700 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1438883072-28706-2-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1438883072-28706-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <1438883072-28706-2-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
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?
> -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)
As a follow on we should be able to remove atomic_inc_return and
replace it with a local iterator in xfs_bmap_finish().
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: why crc req on free-inobt & file-type-indir options?, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 02/11] xfs: return committed status from xfs_trans_roll(), Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 01/11] xfs: disentagle EFI release from the extent count, Brian Foster |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 01/11] xfs: disentagle EFI release from the extent count, Brian Foster |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |