From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:58438 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727985AbeGYGVj (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2018 02:21:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 22:11:43 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/15] xfs: drop unnecessary xfs_defer_finish() dfops parameter Message-ID: <20180725051143.GG5802@infradead.org> References: <20180723130414.47980-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20180723130414.47980-15-bfoster@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180723130414.47980-15-bfoster@redhat.com> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Brian Foster Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org > -int xfs_defer_finish(struct xfs_trans **tp, struct xfs_defer_ops *dop); > -void xfs_defer_cancel(struct xfs_defer_ops *dop); > +int xfs_defer_finish(struct xfs_trans **tp); > +void __xfs_defer_cancel(struct xfs_defer_ops *dop); > index dc79e3c1d3e8..5170e89bec02 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h > @@ -214,6 +214,9 @@ xfs_trans_read_buf( > flags, bpp, ops); > } > > +/* cancel dfops associated with a transaction */ > +void xfs_defer_cancel(struct xfs_trans *); Is there any good reason not to keep xfs_defer_cancel in xfs_defer.[ch]? Otherwise this looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig