From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:44010 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751052AbeEIMHj (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 08:07:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 05:07:38 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] xfs: add bmapi nodiscard flag Message-ID: <20180509120738.GA1050@infradead.org> References: <20180508172231.53570-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20180508172231.53570-2-bfoster@redhat.com> <20180509074629.GC19933@infradead.org> <20180509105853.GD64624@bfoster.bfoster> <20180509113942.GA17093@infradead.org> <20180509120150.GA65322@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180509120150.GA65322@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, Dave Chinner On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:01:51AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > self-documenting, very much unlike a 'true' or 'false' argument. > > I'm fine with replacing the bool argument(s) with flags where applicable > if we do eliminate the wrappers. I'm just hesitant to change it given > the previous feedback to move away from something very close.. > > Dave, care to chime in here? As mentioned, I'll do a refactored v3 if > there's some kind of consensus/agreement on a final approach. I've read the thread on the original patch now. While not my preference I'm fine with doing an xfs_itruncate_extents_flags with a single xfs_itruncate_extents wrapper and the same for bmapi, as long as we pass flags instead of the bool, and don't add pointless wrappers for the nodiscard case - those are just trickle down flags in general, so we should keep things as simple as possible.