From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix inode allocation block res calculation precedence
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:16:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9e464b84-7945-95b5-c6ff-ae3eb8bee878@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200716121811.GB31705@bfoster>
On 7/16/20 5:18 AM, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:02:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
...
>> i.e. XFS_IALLOC_SPACE_RES() is used in just 7 places in the code,
>> 4 of them are in that same header file, so it's a simple, standalone
>> patch that fixes the bug by addressing the underlying cause of
>> the problem (i.e. nasty macro!).
>>
> I agree that the inline is nicer than the macro, but a transaction
> reservation value seems misplaced to me in the IGEO. Perhaps having
> something analogous to struct xfs_trans_resv might be more appropriate.
For whatever my opinion is worth these days, it seems like doing
a survey to see how many of these reservations are static would be a
good first step, and then decide where they should all go if they should
move. I agree that IGEO might be a little odd, depending on what other
static reservation types there are and what they're associated with.
I see both sides of the discussion re: how fixes like this move forward
and what's easily backportable but in this case (and maybe I'm missing
context) it seems like a wider survey would be wise before deciding to
move this one value to IGEO in particular.
-Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-17 17:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-15 19:33 [PATCH] xfs: fix inode allocation block res calculation precedence Brian Foster
2020-07-15 22:29 ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-16 1:47 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-07-16 2:02 ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-16 12:18 ` Brian Foster
2020-07-17 17:16 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2020-07-17 20:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-07-16 12:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfs: replace ialloc space res macro with inline helper Brian Foster
2020-07-16 22:01 ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-17 12:25 ` Brian Foster
2020-07-21 15:01 ` [PATCH] xfs: fix inode allocation block res calculation precedence Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9e464b84-7945-95b5-c6ff-ae3eb8bee878@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).