From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:49832 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726196AbfETGD5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 02:03:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 08:03:35 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/20] xfs: merge xfs_efd_init into xfs_trans_get_efd Message-ID: <20190520060335.GB31977@lst.de> References: <20190517073119.30178-1-hch@lst.de> <20190517073119.30178-14-hch@lst.de> <842291d4-74b5-71bd-5d61-ea513614a9cf@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <842291d4-74b5-71bd-5d61-ea513614a9cf@sandeen.net> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:26:59PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 5/17/19 2:31 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > There is no good reason to keep these two functions separate. > > hm, do the thin ->create_done() wrappers make sense either? > > /* Get an EFD so we can process all the free extents. */ > STATIC void * > xfs_extent_free_create_done( > struct xfs_trans *tp, > void *intent, > unsigned int count) > { > return xfs_trans_get_efd(tp, intent, count); > } > > should we just hook xfs_trans_get_FOO() directly to ->create_done? Well, we have another callers of those in the log recovery code. I have some ideas how to clean some of this up, but that is too much for this series.