From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:50891 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750818AbcI3IXT (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 04:23:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:23:17 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 51/63] xfs: garbage collect old cowextsz reservations Message-ID: <20160930082317.GD32335@infradead.org> References: <147520472904.29434.15518629624221621056.stgit@birch.djwong.org> <147520507171.29434.10328089950905629681.stgit@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <147520507171.29434.10328089950905629681.stgit@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: david@fromorbit.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org I don't really like the eof_scan_owner magic, but that's just copying the existing eofblock scan code, so I guess I shouldn't complain here. Besides that and what appears to generally be a lot of duplication of the eofblock scanning code this looks fine: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig