From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] xfs: replace xfs_buf_incore with an XBF_NOALLOC flag to xfs_buf_get*
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:24:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220406162441.GA590@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220405212133.GY1544202@dread.disaster.area>
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 07:21:33AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I had that earlier, but having xfs_buf_incore as the odd one out that
> > still returns a buffer (like most XFS buffer cache routines did back
> > a long time ago) just did seem pretty odd compared tothe rest.
>
> Then let's fix that to use the same interface as everything else,
> and that simplifies the implementation down to just:
>
> static inline int
> xfs_buf_incore(
> struct xfs_buftarg *target,
> xfs_daddr_t blkno,
> size_t numblks,
> xfs_buf_flags_t flags,
> struct xfs_buf **bpp)
> {
> DEFINE_SINGLE_BUF_MAP(map, blkno, numblks);
>
> return xfs_buf_get_map(target, &map, 1, _XBF_INCORE | flags,
> NULL, bpp);
> }
>
> And, FWIW, the _XBF_NOALLOC flag really wants to be _XBF_INCORE - we
> need it to describe the lookup behaviour the flag provides, not the
> internal implementation detail that acheives the desired
> behaviour....
At least in my mental model a 'find but do not allocate' matches
the lookup behavior more than the somewhat odd 'incore' name. I know
it is something traditional Unix including IRIX has used forever,
but it is a bit of an odd choice with no history in Linux.
That being said the flag and the wrapper should match, so IFF we keep
xfs_buf_incore the flag should also be _XBF_INCORE. Still not my
preference, though.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-06 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-03 12:01 lockless and cleaned up buffer lookup Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 1/5] xfs: add a flags argument to xfs_buf_get Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 2/5] xfs: replace xfs_buf_incore with an XBF_NOALLOC flag to xfs_buf_get* Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 21:54 ` Dave Chinner
2022-04-05 14:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-05 21:21 ` Dave Chinner
2022-04-06 16:24 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 3/5] xfs: remove a superflous hash lookup when inserting new buffers Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 23:04 ` Dave Chinner
2022-04-05 15:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-05 22:01 ` Dave Chinner
2022-04-06 16:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 4/5] xfs: reduce the number of atomic when locking a buffer after lookup Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 5/5] xfs: lockless buffer lookup 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=20220406162441.GA590@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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