From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id nBLMeIIe079392 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:40:18 -0600 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 78FE011C6E9 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:40:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail13.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.98]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 4L98Cv4joogCC8Y1 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:40:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:40:55 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] XFS: rename xfs_get_perag Message-ID: <20091221224055.GK4850@discord.disaster> References: <1260857477-2368-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1AB9A794DBDDF54A8A81BE2296F7BDFE012A68B2@cf--amer001e--3.americas.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1AB9A794DBDDF54A8A81BE2296F7BDFE012A68B2@cf--amer001e--3.americas.sgi.com> 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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Elder Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:21:13PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > Dave Chinner wrote: > > xfs_get_perag is really getting the perag that an inode > > belongs to based on it's inode number. Convert the use of this > > function to just get the perag from a provided ag number. > > Use this new function to obtain the per-ag structure when > > traversing the per AG inode trees for sync and reclaim. > > General > - I like that you now use balanced get/put calls in some places > that previously "got" the ag reference directly (i.e., open > coded), but then used the put interface to release it. > - I do prefer the xfs_perag_get/put naming convention you use (FYI) > > But a real question... > - Why is there no matching xfs_perag_put() in xfs_iflush_cluster()? > (It was that way before. I only superficially read that part > of the code so I'm probably just missing something.) Because this patch is only really converting existing users, not fixing unbalance bugs in th existing get/put calls. The balancing bugs are fixed in a later patch ("XFS: convert remaining direct references to m_perag" IIRC). There are several other balancing bugs fixed in that patch. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs