From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q3U33Zfs191702 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:03:35 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id KKu7q1zcsvYX0hsS for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:03:30 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/3] xfs: make largest supported offset less shouty Message-ID: <20120430030330.GF7015@dastard> References: <1335519922-14371-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20120429125729.GU9541@dastard> <20120429215830.GQ19889@infradead.org> <20120430011124.GD3283@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120430011124.GD3283@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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:11:24AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 05:58:30PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:57:29PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > > > XFS_MAXIOFFSET() is just a simple macro that resolves to > > > mp->m_maxioffset. It doesn't need to exist, and it just makes the > > > code unnecessarily loud and shouty. > > > > > > Make it quiet and easy to read. > > > > Do we actually need to keep around a value in our superblock? > > s_maxbytes in the VFS superblock already does this, and it seems like > > at least our checks in the read path are superflous. Actually, I can't find where the read path checks against s_maxbytes. It's not in generic_segment_check(), and there appears to be no other range checks in the VFS. So I think that the check we have in xfs_file_aio_read needs to remain.... > Ah, we do indeed keep the same value in s_maxbytes - that's one step > removed from m_maxioffset because it uses the same function to > calculate it, and they are done a long way apart. Ok, it looks like > I've got a couple more patches to write to finish off this cleanup. Still, we can now replace the copy-n-paste code in xfs_file_aio_read() with a call to generic_segment_check() seeing as it returns a sum of the iovec length now, and still kill m_maxioffset.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs