Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] xfs: move on-disk inode allocation out of xfs_ialloc()

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 08:15:30AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>  /*
> + * Initialise a newly allocated inode and return the in-core inode to the
> + * caller locked exclusively.
>   */
> -static int
> -xfs_ialloc(
> -	xfs_trans_t	*tp,
> -	xfs_inode_t	*pip,
> -	umode_t		mode,
> -	xfs_nlink_t	nlink,
> -	dev_t		rdev,
> -	prid_t		prid,
> -	xfs_buf_t	**ialloc_context,
> -	xfs_inode_t	**ipp)
> +static struct xfs_inode *
> +xfs_dir_ialloc_init(

This is boderline bikeshedding, but I would just call this
xfs_init_new_inode.

>  int
>  xfs_dir_ialloc(
> @@ -954,83 +908,59 @@ xfs_dir_ialloc(
>  	xfs_inode_t	**ipp)		/* pointer to inode; it will be
>  					   locked. */
>  {
>  	xfs_inode_t	*ip;
>  	xfs_buf_t	*ialloc_context = NULL;
> +	xfs_ino_t	pino = dp ? dp->i_ino : 0;

Maybe spell out parent_inode?  pino reminds of some of the weird Windows
code that start all variable names for pointers with a "p".

> +	/* Initialise the newly allocated inode. */
> +	ip = xfs_dir_ialloc_init(*tpp, dp, ino, mode, nlink, rdev, prid);
> +	if (IS_ERR(ip))
> +		return PTR_ERR(ip);
> +	*ipp = ip;
>  	return 0;

I wonder if we should just return the inode by reference from
xfs_dir_ialloc_init as well, as that nicely fits the calling convention
in the caller, i.e. this could become

	return xfs_init_new_inode(*tpp, dp, ino, mode, nlink, rdev, prid, ipp);

Note with the right naming we don't really need the comment either,
as the function name should explain everything.