From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804C37CB2 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 07:39:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402F3304089 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 05:39:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id xgf0zuq8EDD59u60 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 05:39:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:39:43 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs: better xfs_trans_alloc interface Message-ID: <20160222133943.GA26966@lst.de> References: <1455699159-20906-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1455699159-20906-2-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20160217134006.GA4065@bfoster.bfoster> <20160217220436.GI19486@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160217220436.GI19486@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Brian Foster , Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:04:36AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > I've considered doing this removal myself in the past - doing > somethign like embedding the return address of the > xfs-trans_reserve() call in the ticket that is allocated tells us > exactly where the call was made. This can be printed with %pS, and > that gives us the function (and location in the function) the > reservation was made. Hence we solve the problem of not > knowing which call path triggered the problem. > > Hence I don't think we actually need to the type in every function > call. This brings up a question: do we care about the type of the transaction, or the caller? The existing types were rather confused about that. If it's the transaction type we could simply add a name field to struct xfs_trans_res, if we care about caller the trick from Dave should do the job. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com ---end quoted text--- _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs