linux-xfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix inode allocation block res calculation precedence
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:07:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200717200726.GO3151642@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e464b84-7945-95b5-c6ff-ae3eb8bee878@sandeen.net>

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:16:02AM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 7/16/20 5:18 AM, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:02:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> >> i.e. XFS_IALLOC_SPACE_RES() is used in just 7 places in the code,
> >> 4 of them are in that same header file, so it's a simple, standalone
> >> patch that fixes the bug by addressing the underlying cause of
> >> the problem (i.e. nasty macro!).
> >>
> > I agree that the inline is nicer than the macro, but a transaction
> > reservation value seems misplaced to me in the IGEO. Perhaps having
> > something analogous to struct xfs_trans_resv might be more appropriate.
> 
> For whatever my opinion is worth these days, it seems like doing
> a survey to see how many of these reservations are static would be a
> good first step, and then decide where they should all go if they should
> move. I agree that IGEO might be a little odd, depending on what other
> static reservation types there are and what they're associated with.
> 
> I see both sides of the discussion re: how fixes like this move forward
> and what's easily backportable but in this case (and maybe I'm missing
> context) it seems like a wider survey would be wise before deciding to
> move this one value to IGEO in particular.

Agreed.  AFAICT the first patch is a bug fix for broken functionality,
so I will put it in the 5.9 branch update next week.

--D

> -Eric

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-17 20:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-15 19:33 [PATCH] xfs: fix inode allocation block res calculation precedence Brian Foster
2020-07-15 22:29 ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-16  1:47   ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-07-16  2:02     ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-16 12:18       ` Brian Foster
2020-07-17 17:16         ` Eric Sandeen
2020-07-17 20:07           ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2020-07-16 12:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfs: replace ialloc space res macro with inline helper Brian Foster
2020-07-16 22:01   ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-17 12:25     ` Brian Foster
2020-07-21 15:01 ` [PATCH] xfs: fix inode allocation block res calculation precedence Christoph Hellwig

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=20200717200726.GO3151642@magnolia \
    --to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    /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).