Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] xfs: add bmapi nodiscard flag

[Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>]

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 05:07:38AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

Ok, do you mean to include xfs_free_extent() in that as well? E.g.,
xfs_free_extent_flags(..., XFS_EXTENT_BUSY_SKIP_DISCARD) vs. a single
wrapper without _flags()? Note that that flag is still sourced from a
boolean unless we also change the xfs_extent_free_item field, which I'm
not sure makes sense. Alternatively, I could just kill the
xfs_free_extent_nodiscard() wrapper and call the internal variant from
the one place that wants to toggle discard behavior.

Brian

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html