Re: [PATCH v15 06/22] xfs: Separate xfs_attr_node_addname and xfs_attr_node_addname_work

[Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@oracle.com>]

On 3/1/21 11:00 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 05:54:51PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/25/21 9:02 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:53:32AM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
>>>> This patch separate xfs_attr_node_addname into two functions.  This will
>>>> help to make it easier to hoist parts of xfs_attr_node_addname that need
>>>> state management
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c
>>>> index 205ad26..bee8d3fb 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c
>>>> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ STATIC int xfs_attr_leaf_hasname(struct xfs_da_args *args, struct xfs_buf **bp);
>>>>    STATIC int xfs_attr_node_get(xfs_da_args_t *args);
>>>>    STATIC int xfs_attr_node_addname(xfs_da_args_t *args);
>>>>    STATIC int xfs_attr_node_removename(xfs_da_args_t *args);
>>>> +STATIC int xfs_attr_node_addname_work(struct xfs_da_args *args);
>>>>    STATIC int xfs_attr_node_hasname(xfs_da_args_t *args,
>>>>    				 struct xfs_da_state **state);
>>>>    STATIC int xfs_attr_fillstate(xfs_da_state_t *state);
>>>> @@ -1059,6 +1060,25 @@ xfs_attr_node_addname(
>>>>    			return error;
>>>>    	}
>>>> +	error = xfs_attr_node_addname_work(args);
>>>> +out:
>>>> +	if (state)
>>>> +		xfs_da_state_free(state);
>>>> +	if (error)
>>>> +		return error;
>>>> +	return retval;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>> +STATIC
>>>> +int xfs_attr_node_addname_work(
>>>
>>> What, erm, work does this function do?  Since it survives to the end of
>>> the patchset, I think this needs a better name (or at least needs a
>>> comment about what it's actually supposed to do).
>> To directly answer the question: it's here to help xfs_attr_set_iter not be
>> any bigger than it has to. I think we likely struggled with the name because
>> it's almost like it's just the "remainder" of the operation that doesnt need
>> state management
>>
>>>
>>> AFAICT you're splitting node_addname() into two functions because we're
>>> at a transaction roll point, and this "_work" function exists to remove
>>> the copy of the xattr key that has the "INCOMPLETE" bit set (aka the old
>>> one), right?
>> Thats about right. Maybe just a quick comment?
>> /*
>>   * Removes the old xattr key marked with the INCOMPLETE bit
>>   */
>>
>> I suppose we could consider something like
>> "xfs_attr_node_addname_remv_incomplete"?  Or xfs_attr_node_addname_cleanup?
>> Trying to cram it into the name maybe getting a bit wordy too.
> 
> xfs_attr_node_addname_clear_incomplete?
I'm fine with that as long as everyone else is :-)

Allison
> 
> --D
> 
>>
>> Allison
>>>
>>> --D
>>>
>>>> +	struct xfs_da_args		*args)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct xfs_da_state		*state = NULL;
>>>> +	struct xfs_da_state_blk		*blk;
>>>> +	int				retval = 0;
>>>> +	int				error = 0;
>>>> +
>>>>    	/*
>>>>    	 * Re-find the "old" attribute entry after any split ops. The INCOMPLETE
>>>>    	 * flag means that we will find the "old" attr, not the "new" one.
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>