From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:39539 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753711AbdBGJne (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2017 04:43:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:43:32 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] xfs: improve handling of busy extents in the low-level allocator Message-ID: <20170207094332.GD15267@lst.de> References: <1485715421-17182-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1485715421-17182-3-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170203162243.GF45388@bfoster.bfoster> <20170204095606.GC18472@lst.de> <20170206164750.GG57865@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170206164750.GG57865@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 Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:47:50AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > That said, that limitation should be noted somewhere. Can we add a > comment in xfs_extent_busy_clear() right above the hunk where we do the > SKIP_DISCARD wake? E.g., something that points out the gen number for > any particular extent could be bumped in such a situation.. (or > something along those lines)? I could add a comment, but given that the tree tracks busy extents and is not in any way specific to discard I think it's more confusing than not having it.