From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] xfs: introduce a XFS_BMAPI_BESTEFFORT flag
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:58:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170418075800.GB23085@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170417180808.GA42232@bfoster.bfoster>
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 02:08:08PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> This seems Ok, but I don't think it's very elegant to have callers pass
> a total parameter along with a flag to ignore it. Couldn't we just set
> minleft when total is not used and pass zero from those particular
> callers, or do we actually need to support the !BESTEFFORT && total == 0
> case?
We could do that, in in context of just this patch it would even seem
cleaner. But for the next merge window I have changes queued up that
remove the total parameter and it's passing along the dir/da_btree
code entirely by looking at the transaction reservation for the
!BESTEFFORT case, which I thikn is even better as a grand scheme.
> (At the very least, we could assert that total == 0 when
> BESTEFFORT is set.)
Sure.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-18 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-13 8:05 fix space reservations underneath xfs_bmapi_write Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 01/10] xfs: introduce xfs_trans_blk_res Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-13 18:28 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 02/10] xfs: rewrite xfs_da_grow_inode_int Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-13 18:28 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 03/10] xfs: remove the XFS_BMAPI_CONTIG flag Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-13 18:28 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 04/10] xfs: remove an unsafe retry in xfs_bmbt_alloc_block Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-13 18:30 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-14 7:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-17 14:19 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-18 7:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-18 14:18 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-25 7:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-25 12:11 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 05/10] xfs: remove the total argument to xfs_bmap_local_to_extents Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-17 14:19 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 06/10] xfs: fix bmap minleft calculation Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-17 14:19 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-18 7:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 07/10] xfs: fix space reservation in xfs_bmbt_alloc_block Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-17 14:19 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 08/10] xfs: introduce a XFS_BMAPI_BESTEFFORT flag Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-17 18:08 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-18 7:58 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2017-04-18 14:18 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 09/10] xfs: kill the dop_low flag Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-17 18:08 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-13 8:05 ` [PATCH 10/10] xfs: remove xfs_bmap_alloc Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-17 18:08 ` Brian Foster
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=20170418075800.GB23085@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.