Re: [PATCH 7/7] xfs: split xfs_trans_mod_sb

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 10:05:33AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:54:08AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 10:06:15AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > Seems Ok, but not sure I see the point personally. Rather than a single
> > > helper with flags, we have multiple helpers, some of which still mix
> > > deltas via an incrementally harder to read boolean param. This seems
> > > sort of arbitrary to me. Is this to support some future work?
> > 
> > I just find these multiplexers that have no common logic very confusing.
> > 
> > And yes, I also have some changes to share more logic between the
> > delalloc vs non-delalloc block accounting.
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by no common logic. The original
> trans_mod_sb() is basically a big switch statement for modifying the
> appropriate transaction delta associated with a superblock field. That
> seems logical to me.
> 
> Just to be clear, I don't really feel strongly about this one way or the
> other. I don't object and I don't think it makes anything worse, and
> it's less of a change if half this stuff goes away anyways by changing
> how the sb is logged. But I also think sometimes code seems more clear
> moreso because we go through the process of refactoring it (i.e.
> familiarity bias) over what the code ultimately looks like.
> 
> *shrug* This is all subjective, I'm sure there are other opinions.

I'd rather have separate functions for each field, because
xfs_trans_mod_sb is a giant dispatch function, with almost no shared
logic save the tp->t_flags update at the end.

I'm not in love with the 'wasdel' parameter name, but I don't have a
better suggestion short of splitting them up into even more tiny
functions:

void	xfs_trans_mod_res_fdblocks(struct xfs_trans *tp, int64_t delta);
void	xfs_trans_mod_fdblocks(struct xfs_trans *tp, int64_t delta);

which is sort of gross since the callers already have a wasdel variable.

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>

--D

> Brian
> 
>