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 p8AIqeH2123005 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:52:41 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:52:38 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/25] xfs: pass bmalloca structure to xfs_bmap_isaeof Message-ID: <20110910185238.GB4750@infradead.org> References: <20110824060428.789245205@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110824060643.660514652@bombadil.infradead.org> <1315612556.1999.130.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1315612556.1999.130.camel@doink> 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: Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 06:55:56PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 02:04 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > All the variables xfs_bmap_isaeof() is passed are contained within > > the xfs_bmalloca structure. Pass that instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > > This looks good. > > Now that the transaction pointer is available in > xfs_bmap_isaeof(), it gets used in the call to > xfs_bmap_last_extent(). It looks to me like > this means btree block buffers will be added to > and removed from the transaction's item list > in xfs_bmap_read_extents(), and that list will > be scanned for these buffers in xfs_trans_read_buf() > (unlike before). > > I don't question whether that's correct, but > is that desirable? Would we be just as well > off *not* providing the transaction pointer? We shouldn't do it, if just to avoid random changes in this patch. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs