Re: [PATCH 5/7] xfs: replace min & max with clamp() in xfs_max_open_zones()

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 02:54:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> From: George Hu <integral@archlinux.org>
> 
> Refactor the xfs_max_open_zones() function by replacing the usage of
> min() and max() macro with clamp() to simplify the code and improve
> readability.
> 
> Signed-off-by: George Hu <integral@archlinux.org>
> Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_zone_alloc.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_zone_alloc.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_zone_alloc.c
> index 729d80ff52c1..d9e2b1411434 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_zone_alloc.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_zone_alloc.c
> @@ -1133,9 +1133,7 @@ xfs_max_open_zones(
>  	/*
>  	 * Cap the max open limit to 1/4 of available space
>  	 */
> -	max_open = min(max_open, mp->m_sb.sb_rgcount / 4);
> -
> -	return max(XFS_MIN_OPEN_ZONES, max_open);
> +	return clamp(max_open, XFS_MIN_OPEN_ZONES, mp->m_sb.sb_rgcount / 4);

Does clamp() handle the case where @max < @min properly?
I'm worried about shenanigans on a runt 7-zone drive, though I can't
remember off the top of my head if we actually prohibit that...

--D

>  }
>  
>  /*
> -- 
> 2.47.2
> 
>