Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] xfs: include an allocfree res for inobt modifications

[Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:34:45AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:49:22AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:27:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:24:34PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
...
> > > Code looks fine. Comments below are for another follow-on patch.
> > > 
> > 
> > Actually, what do you think of the following variant (compile tested
> > only)? This facilites another cleanup patch I just wrote to kill off
> > about half of the (now effectively duplicate) xfs_calc_create_*()
> > helpers because the finobt and inode chunk res. helpers only include the
> > associated reservation based on the associated feature bits.
> 
> Yup, makes a lot of sense to do that.
> 
> FWIW, because we've got so many alloc vs free type reservations,
> would it make more sense to do something like:
> 
> #define _ALLOC	true
> #define _FREE	false
> 
> And use those in the callers rather than true/false?
> 
...
> > @@ -511,7 +542,7 @@ xfs_calc_ifree_reservation(
> >  		xfs_calc_buf_res(3, mp->m_sb.sb_sectsize) +
> >  		xfs_calc_iunlink_remove_reservation(mp) +
> >  		xfs_calc_buf_res(1, 0) +
> > -		xfs_calc_buf_res(mp->m_ialloc_blks, 0) +
> > +		xfs_calc_inode_chunk_res(mp, false) +
> 
> 		xfs_calc_inode_chunk_res(mp, _FREE) +
> 		.....
> 
> That would make it very clear what type of reservation we are
> acutally expecting to take out in the calculation. i.e. the code
> is now clearly self documenting :)
> 

Sure, that looks like a nice enhancement. I'll factor that in..

Brian

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html