| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs_file_splice_read: possible circular locking dependency detected, Linus Torvalds |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 16/71] xfs: log refcount intent items, Darrick J. Wong |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 07/71] xfs: define tracepoints for refcount btree activities, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 08/71] xfs: introduce refcount btree definitions, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |