Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: fix false enospc for compression

[Wang Xiaoguang <wangxg.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

hi,

On 10/19/2016 10:23 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:01:46PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>>    int btrfs_set_extent_delalloc(struct inode *inode, u64 start, u64 end,
>>>> -			      struct extent_state **cached_state);
>>>> +			      struct extent_state **cached_state, int flag);
>>>>    int btrfs_set_extent_defrag(struct inode *inode, u64 start, u64 end,
>>>> -			    struct extent_state **cached_state);
>>>> +			    struct extent_state **cached_state, int flag);
>>> [..]
>>>>    int btrfs_dirty_pages(struct btrfs_root *root, struct inode *inode,
>>>>    		      struct page **pages, size_t num_pages,
>>>>    		      loff_t pos, size_t write_bytes,
>>>> -		      struct extent_state **cached);
>>>> +		      struct extent_state **cached, int flag);
>>> Instead of adding "int flag" why not use the already defined
>>> btrfs_metadata_reserve_type enum? I know it's just an int at the end of
>>> the day, but the dedupe support already added another "int dedupe" argument
>>> and it's probably easy to cause confusion.
>>> Maybe later it would be beneficial to consolidate the flags into a consistent
>>> set of enum values to prevent more "int flag" inflation and better declare the
>>> intent of the extent state change. Not sure if that makes sense.
>> Yes, agree.
>> I'll rebase them later, thanks.
> Would be great. I won't manually merge the patch now as it's not a
> conflict against the current state, btrfs_set_extent_delalloc has the
> extra parameter already. Please consolidate them before this patch is
> supposed to be merged. Thanks.
Sorry for being late, I have just finished the rebase work now.
I'll run some fstests job, if no regressions, I'll send two patches 
tomorrow :)

Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang

>
>