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 oB14Uo3s170917 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:30:51 -0600 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id EC7991B819D for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:32:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail17.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.102]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id laycuSN2YrdQEzW5 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:32:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:32:27 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] xfs: kill xfs_iomap Message-ID: <20101201043227.GF16922@dastard> References: <20101122130506.868076797@bombadil.infradead.org> <20101122130903.938808862@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101122130903.938808862@bombadil.infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:05:11AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Opencode the xfs_iomap code in it's two callers. The overlap of passed > flags already was minimal and will be further reduced in the next patch. > > As a side effect the BMAPI_* flags for xfs_bmapi and the IO_* flags > for I/O end processing are merged into a single set of flags, which > should be a bit more descriptive of the operation we perform. > > Also improve the tracing by giving each caller it's own type set of > tracepoints. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Looks ok. Minor comment: > @@ -1472,7 +1563,7 @@ xfs_vm_direct_IO( > ssize_t ret; > > if (rw & WRITE) { > - iocb->private = xfs_alloc_ioend(inode, IO_NEW); > + iocb->private = xfs_alloc_ioend(inode, 0); > > ret = __blockdev_direct_IO(rw, iocb, inode, bdev, iov, > offset, nr_segs, Using an ioend type to "0" is not very obvious given all the other uses have a defined type. I know that this converted to IO_UNWRITTEN in IO completion if neceessary, but perhaps a IO_DIRECT type might be better just to document it? Or perhaps a comment stating why 0 is OK to use here? Everything else looks fine, so: Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs