From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=none Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB1F11B8 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 21:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 3440567373; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 06:32:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 06:32:19 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Chandan Babu R , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: clean up the xfs_reserve_blocks interface Message-ID: <20231128053219.GB16579@lst.de> References: <20231126130124.1251467-1-hch@lst.de> <20231126130124.1251467-4-hch@lst.de> <20231128020933.GS2766956@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231128020933.GS2766956@frogsfrogsfrogs> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 06:09:33PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > + spin_lock(&mp->m_sb_lock); > > + fsop.resblks = mp->m_resblks; > > + fsop.resblks_avail = mp->m_resblks_avail; > > + spin_unlock(&mp->m_sb_lock); > > Hm. I sorta preferred keeping these details hidden in xfs_fsops.c > rather than scattering them around and lengthening xfs_ioctl.c, but > I think the calling convention cleanup is worthy enough for: If you prefer I can keep a helper to fill in a xfs_fsop_resblks structure under m_sb_lock in fsops.c, but I'm not sure that's worth it.