Re: [PATCH 0/5] Remove delay_iput parameter when running delalloc work

[David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:31:17PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23.04.2018 12:27, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 2018年04月23日 15:54, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >> While trying to make sense of the lifecycle of delayed iputs it became apparent
> >> that the delay_iput parameter of btrfs_start_delalloc_roots/
> >> btrfs_start_delalloc_inodes is always set to 0. (Patch 1 contains historical 
> >> information of why this parameter was needed and when it became obsolete). Now
> >> that the code has changed sufficiently it's no longer required to have it so
> >> this series gradually removes it. 
> >>
> >> Nikolay Borisov (5):
> >>   btrfs: Remove delayed_iput parameter of btrfs_start_delalloc_roots
> >>   btrfs: Remove delayed_iput parameter from btrfs_start_delalloc_inodes
> >>   btrfs: Remove delay_iput parameter from __start_delalloc_inodes
> >>   btrfs: Remove delayed_iput member from btrfs_delalloc_work
> >>   btrfs: Unexport btrfs_alloc_delalloc_work
> > 
> > Solid cleanup.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> > 
> > Just a little nitpick about the 3rd and 4th patch.
> > It would be nicer the merge them, as in the the 3rd patch
> > btrfs_alloc_delalloc_work() call still takes 0 as @delay_iput, but in
> > next patch the @delay_iput just get removed.
> 
> I'm fine with that, I guess David if you deem it more reasonable you
> could squash the 2 patches. I just did it for the sake of bisectability
> and review purposes.

Unless the change is too fine-grained, the separate patches are easier
to review. In this case, one is removing the member and the other the
function arugment, this can be considered 2 logical changes.