From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:52698 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753811AbdBDJum (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Feb 2017 04:50:42 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:50:40 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: don't fail xfs_extent_busy allocation Message-ID: <20170204095040.GA18472@lst.de> References: <1485715421-17182-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1485715421-17182-2-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170203152052.GB45388@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170203152052.GB45388@bfoster.bfoster> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:20:52AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 07:43:38PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > We don't just need the structure to track busy extents which can be > > avoided with a synchronous transaction, but also to keep track of > > pending discard. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > --- > > Looks fine, though I wonder if we should create a kmem_cache similar to > all of the other log item structures and whatnot... Using the isolation of a slab cache for such a short lived structure seems counter productive.