From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: merge xfs_reflink_remap_range and xfs_file_share_range
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 07:17:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161018051758.GA2184@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161017212933.GE26485@birch.djwong.org>
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:29:33PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > + bs = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize;
> > + inode_dio_wait(inode);
> > +
> > + rounding = max_t(xfs_off_t, bs, PAGE_SIZE);
> > + ioffset = round_down(offset, rounding);
> > + iendoffset = round_up(offset + len, rounding) - 1;
> > + ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, ioffset,
> > + iendoffset);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> This seems like a file action not specific to reflink.
But it's only used by the reflink code :)
That being said given that filemap_write_and_wait_range operates
on pages there is no need for the rounding anyway, and we could
just replace it with open coded calls to inode_dio_wait and
filemap_write_and_wait_range. Maybe I should do that before
this patch so we don't have to bother moving it.
> > +xfs_file_share_range(
>
> xfs_reflink_share_file_range() ?
>
> I'd like to maintain the convention that all reflink functions
> start with xfs_reflink_*, particularly since the xfs_file_* functions
> largely live in xfs_file.c.
Ok, fine.
> > + if (is_dedupe) {
> > + bool is_same = false;
> > +
> > + ret = xfs_compare_extents(inode_in, pos_in, inode_out, pos_out,
> > + len, &is_same);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto out_unlock;;
>
> Double-semicolon here.
I'll fix it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-18 5:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-17 12:05 fix locking for the reflink operation Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-17 12:05 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfs: remove the same fs check from xfs_file_share_range Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-17 21:11 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-10-17 12:05 ` [PATCH 2/4] xfs: fix the same_inode check in xfs_file_share_range Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-17 21:12 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-10-17 12:05 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfs: move inode locking from xfs_reflink_remap_range to xfs_file_share_range Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-17 21:16 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-10-17 12:05 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfs: merge xfs_reflink_remap_range and xfs_file_share_range Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-17 21:29 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-10-18 5:17 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2016-10-17 21:35 ` fix locking for the reflink operation Darrick J. Wong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161018051758.GA2184@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).