From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:48005 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1164024AbdAIR4P (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:56:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 18:56:13 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] xfs: fix bogus minleft manipulations Message-ID: <20170109175613.GA2863@lst.de> References: <1482436822-31546-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1482436822-31546-4-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170104181933.GC41989@bfoster.bfoster> <20170108103611.GC26451@lst.de> <20170108160935.GC62847@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170108160935.GC62847@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, eguan@redhat.com, darrick.wong@oracle.com On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 11:09:35AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > In this particular case, I think it's probably safer to defer the > removal of the entire bmbt_alloc_block() hunk to that audit that will > take into consideration the broader context. IOWs, take the same > approach in bmbt_alloc_block() as you have in xfs_bmap_btalloc(). Ok, will do.