From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4A87F3F for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:13:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E9D8F8064 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vIQme8qDsusGC231 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5355DE4B.2000009@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:13:15 +0800 From: Jeff Liu MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] xfs: consolidate xfs_bulkstat_single References: <535078AD.5050209@oracle.com> <20140421141148.GA27064@infradead.org> <20140421235249.GG18672@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20140421235249.GG18672@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On 04/22 2014 07:52 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:11:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 08:58:21AM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: >>> From: Jie Liu >>> >>> In xfs_bulkstat_single(), call xfs_bulkstat_one() and xfs_bulkstat() >>> would return different error if either failed, we'd better return the >>> proper error in this case. Moreover, the function argument done is >>> useless in terms of xfs_ioc_bulkstat(), hence we can get rid of it. >> >> I've looked at xfs_bulkstat_single I really can't see how falling back >> to the full xfs_bulkstat could fix any error. We probably should just >> get rid of the fallback and instead do something like the (lightly tested) >> patch below: >> >> --- >> From: Christoph Hellwig >> Subject: xfs: remove xfs_bulkstat_single >> >> xfs_bukstat_one doesn't have any failure case that would go away when >> called through xfs_bulkstat, so remove the fallback and the now unessecary >> xfs_bulkstat_single function. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > *nod* > > I like this approach :) I reconsidered the call interface in xfs_fsr and xfs_io/parent. Yep, your idea is better and the patch looks good to me. Thanks, -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs