Re: [PATCH RFC 02/10] xfs: Refactor xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent()

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

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 10:35:28AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 05/02/2025 19:50, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
> > > index 59f7fc16eb80..580469668334 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
> > > @@ -786,35 +786,20 @@ xfs_reflink_update_quota(
> > >    * requirements as low as possible.
> > >    */
> > >   STATIC int
> > > -xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent(
> > > +xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent_locked(
> > >   	struct xfs_inode	*ip,
> > >   	xfs_fileoff_t		*offset_fsb,
> > > -	xfs_fileoff_t		end_fsb)
> > > +	xfs_fileoff_t		end_fsb,
> > > +	struct xfs_trans	*tp,
> > > +	bool			*commit)
> > Transactions usually come before the inode in the parameter list.
> 
> ok
> 
> > 
> > You don't need to pass out a @commit flag -- if the function returns
> > nonzero then the caller has to cancel the transaction; otherwise it will
> > return zero and the caller should commit it.>  There's no penalty for
> > committing a non-dirty transaction.
> 
> If there is no penalty, then fine. But I don't feel totally comfortable with
> this and would prefer to keep the same behavior.

Right now this is the only place in XFS that behaves this way, which
means you're adding a new code idiom that isn't present anywhere else in
the code base.

--D

> Thanks,
> John
> 
> 
> 
>