[PATCH 1/2] btrfs: avoid passing int param to start_transaction which takes u64

[PATCH 1/2] btrfs: avoid passing int param to start_transaction which takes u64

[Alexandru Moise]

Signed-off-by: Alexandru Moise <00moses.alexander00@gmail.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
index 8f259b3..8a83acd 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ reserve_fail:
 }
 
 struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
-						   int num_items)
+						   u64 num_items)
 {
 	return start_transaction(root, num_items, TRANS_START,
 				 BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_ALL);
-- 
2.5.1

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: avoid passing int param to start_transaction which takes u64

[Alexandru Moise]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 02:53:14PM +0000, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:29:41 +0000, Alexandru Moise wrote:
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Moise <00moses.alexander00@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> > index 8f259b3..8a83acd 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> > @@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ reserve_fail:
> >  }
> >  
> >  struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
> > -						   int num_items)
> > +						   u64 num_items)
> >  {
> >  	return start_transaction(root, num_items, TRANS_START,
> >  				 BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_ALL);
> 
> So I tried to build this..you won't believe what happened next:
> 
>   CC [M]  fs/btrfs/transaction.o
> fs/btrfs/transaction.c:570:28: error: conflicting types for 'btrfs_start_transaction'
>  struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
>                             ^
> In file included from fs/btrfs/transaction.c:28:0:
> fs/btrfs/transaction.h:186:28: note: previous declaration of 'btrfs_start_transaction' was here
>  struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
>                             ^
> scripts/Makefile.build:258: recipe for target 'fs/btrfs/transaction.o' failed
> 
> You need to update transaction.h as well.

The heck? I pulled from linus' tree earlier today and it built, I'll check again.
Thanks for telling me.

[PATCH 1/2] btrfs: avoid passing int param to start_transaction which takes u64

[Alexandru Moise]

Signed-off-by: Alexandru Moise <00moses.alexander00@gmail.com>
---
v2: Forgot to add transaction.h when I made the commit, many thanks
Holger for pointing it out.

 fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 2 +-
 fs/btrfs/transaction.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
index 8f259b3..8a83acd 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ reserve_fail:
 }
 
 struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
-						   int num_items)
+						   u64 num_items)
 {
 	return start_transaction(root, num_items, TRANS_START,
 				 BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_ALL);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.h b/fs/btrfs/transaction.h
index edc2fbc..51ba39f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.h
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ static inline void btrfs_clear_skip_qgroup(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans)
 int btrfs_end_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
 			  struct btrfs_root *root);
 struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
-						   int num_items);
+						   u64 num_items);
 struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction_lflush(
 					struct btrfs_root *root, int num_items);
 struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_join_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root);
-- 
2.5.1

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: avoid passing int param to start_transaction which takes u64

[Alexandru Moise]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 02:53:14PM +0000, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:29:41 +0000, Alexandru Moise wrote:
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Moise <00moses.alexander00@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> > index 8f259b3..8a83acd 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> > @@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ reserve_fail:
> >  }
> >  
> >  struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
> > -						   int num_items)
> > +						   u64 num_items)
> >  {
> >  	return start_transaction(root, num_items, TRANS_START,
> >  				 BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_ALL);
> 
> So I tried to build this..you won't believe what happened next:
> 
>   CC [M]  fs/btrfs/transaction.o
> fs/btrfs/transaction.c:570:28: error: conflicting types for 'btrfs_start_transaction'
>  struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
>                             ^
> In file included from fs/btrfs/transaction.c:28:0:
> fs/btrfs/transaction.h:186:28: note: previous declaration of 'btrfs_start_transaction' was here
>  struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
>                             ^
> scripts/Makefile.build:258: recipe for target 'fs/btrfs/transaction.o' failed
> 
> You need to update transaction.h as well.

Dammit, yes. I only added transaction.c when I commited. Serves me right.
I am an idiot for not running git status after git commit. Thanks a
lot for telling me.
Just sent an amended patch.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: avoid passing int param to start_transaction which takes u64

[David Sterba]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 06:47:20PM +0000, Alexandru Moise wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Moise <00moses.alexander00@gmail.com>
> ---
> v2: Forgot to add transaction.h when I made the commit, many thanks
> Holger for pointing it out.
> 
>  fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 2 +-
>  fs/btrfs/transaction.h | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> index 8f259b3..8a83acd 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> @@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ reserve_fail:
>  }
>  
>  struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
> -						   int num_items)
> +						   u64 num_items)

I think it's better to do it the other way around, ie. let all the
equivalents of 'num_items' be an int. We know that this is a small
number, using u64 for that is an overkill. As the number is always
positive, please make it 'unsigned'.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: avoid passing int param to start_transaction which takes u64

[Alexandru Moise]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:09:33PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 06:47:20PM +0000, Alexandru Moise wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Moise <00moses.alexander00@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Forgot to add transaction.h when I made the commit, many thanks
> > Holger for pointing it out.
> > 
> >  fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 2 +-
> >  fs/btrfs/transaction.h | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> > index 8f259b3..8a83acd 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> > @@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ reserve_fail:
> >  }
> >  
> >  struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_transaction(struct btrfs_root *root,
> > -						   int num_items)
> > +						   u64 num_items)
> 
> I think it's better to do it the other way around, ie. let all the
> equivalents of 'num_items' be an int. We know that this is a small
> number, using u64 for that is an overkill. As the number is always
> positive, please make it 'unsigned'.

So you'd want it to be "unsigned int" or "u32"?

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: avoid passing int param to start_transaction which takes u64

[David Sterba]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:33:07PM +0300, Alexandru Moise wrote:
> > I think it's better to do it the other way around, ie. let all the
> > equivalents of 'num_items' be an int. We know that this is a small
> > number, using u64 for that is an overkill. As the number is always
> > positive, please make it 'unsigned'.
> 
> So you'd want it to be "unsigned int" or "u32"?

'unsigned int' please