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 C6ABF7F47 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 02:36:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C22AC004 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 00:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id wvZXp6M8DVBHtoCv (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 00:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 00:36:41 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] xfs: disentagle EFI release from the extent count Message-ID: <20150809073641.GA3163@infradead.org> References: <1438883072-28706-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <1438883072-28706-2-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1438883072-28706-2-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> 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: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:44:22PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: - __xfs_efi_release(efip); + xfs_efi_release(efip); Can you explain in the changelog why this is safe? > -xfs_efi_release(xfs_efi_log_item_t *efip, > - uint nextents) > +xfs_efi_release(struct xfs_efi_log_item *efip) Can you use normal XFS function formatting here? e.g. xfs_efi_release( struct xfs_efi_log_item *efip) As a follow on we should be able to remove atomic_inc_return and replace it with a local iterator in xfs_bmap_finish(). _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs