From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78F2C433E3 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:09:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E712065D for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:09:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="B4UhzZWr" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728432AbgGQUJf (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:09:35 -0400 Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:59016 "EHLO aserp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726771AbgGQUJe (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:09:34 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06HK8CTn153973; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:09:30 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=lA37IPZvJ84ABk+CRcaItjSoDQDCwOQb3a5ru8DL4n4=; b=B4UhzZWrJD0SKDChj9040JWoB4nT/KDUJBA01DLYO8/OQ3qJgnse5hd+TMISIQ23BQcc yPkTjyo+CeHsP4MniR3LE5UxKV6Hebdr0TIoUB5N3OjpXMNc3exE4gAMiT6ZVrcsQ4NS NkRy7J6gMyauHhwb31quRY669OdIxi+q9/YXTlsQ3IGlZixwA5MBKI4PXgE7tc5VCXKj 7sdUwqBQW0DhL2aSt2AQPi9Wc6eI9x/KCv+oCSFD1PiSsEiAhQFXdhb5IVO83we5Z56e lLDYAiTcSF29OnJcjxcW03zbC8Bmro1h8WmF3rnn/yBVfb7Ar6oElOufUCeWNE36Tcot 9Q== Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by aserp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 327s65yka1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:09:29 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06HJwnuF107420; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:07:29 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 32bjd3hh78-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:07:29 +0000 Received: from abhmp0008.oracle.com (abhmp0008.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 06HK7SCh013387; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:07:28 GMT Received: from localhost (/10.159.159.76) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:07:27 -0700 Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:07:26 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Brian Foster , Dave Chinner , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix inode allocation block res calculation precedence Message-ID: <20200717200726.GO3151642@magnolia> References: <20200715193310.22002-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20200715222935.GI2005@dread.disaster.area> <20200716014759.GH3151642@magnolia> <20200716020209.GK2005@dread.disaster.area> <20200716121811.GB31705@bfoster> <9e464b84-7945-95b5-c6ff-ae3eb8bee878@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9e464b84-7945-95b5-c6ff-ae3eb8bee878@sandeen.net> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9685 signatures=668680 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007170135 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9685 signatures=668680 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=1 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007170136 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org 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