From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C46C7F7B for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:00:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA83AC004 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:00:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id qWJACul62yR48bJU for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:00:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:59:56 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs_spaceman: Accounting for AGFL blocks Message-ID: <20150128205956.GA6282@dastard> References: <54c1c12e.230a460a.4729.11fc@mx.google.com> <20150128015757.GT16552@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: ADRS PICT Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:35:22PM +0530, ADRS PICT wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Hmmm - I think something is still missing - what are the sagbno and > > eagbno parameters supposed to do? > > Actually the parameters sagbno and eagbno are not needed in this > function and can be excluded. Why? Don't we still have to check the blocks found on the AGFL fll within the range requested by the user, like we do for every extent found in the btree? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs