From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o8TBiMfA044784 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:44:23 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 217EAE93D12 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 04:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id wlzduhqVQoptLvWh for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 04:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:45:20 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [PATCH 2/3] xfs: do not use xfs_mod_incore_sb for per-cpu counters Message-ID: <20100929114520.GA14048@infradead.org> References: <20100929072221.583672974@bombadil.infradead.org> <20100929072238.162539532@bombadil.infradead.org> <20100929113914.GP5665@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100929113914.GP5665@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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:39:14PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Not sure I like the indenting of the second line. I'd prefer the > parameters to have a little more indent or use three lines... That whole area needs some larger refactoring / reformatting work. I'll see if I can ad danother patch for that. > > + ASSERT(field < XFS_SBS_ICOUNT || field > XFS_SBS_FDBLOCKS); > > That assert will cause issues with: > > > @@ -97,6 +99,8 @@ extern void xfs_icsb_sync_counters_locke > > #define xfs_icsb_reinit_counters(mp) do { } while (0) > > #define xfs_icsb_sync_counters(mp, flags) do { } while (0) > > #define xfs_icsb_sync_counters_locked(mp, flags) do { } while (0) > > +#define xfs_icsb_modify_counters(mp, field, delta, rsvd) \ > > + xfs_mod_incore_sb(mp, field, delta, rsvd) > > #endif > > UP builds. Perhaps a CONFIG_SMP only assert? Given that the per-cpu > counter rework I'm doing doesn't have a different code path for > UP vs SMP, it'd only be a temporary concern.... Indeed, it should be conditional. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs