From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6E9D4431 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:04:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728655465; cv=none; b=UxCTcBHxMuOYcLwmIssJWhlQskMzj3oDkc+rMGHoF6diMl47BNdCiLeS5RDCxK+Zz+6x7DQkKhwSrPyHX/EbaBZ3jgu9ue0IIrtC3sDHAAGsvNycQjmBb6TzjFAjBEJOmk7DcIaQ6qyGq9MySdtW5oKZAgh2L8G+HlfXDQ5hmks= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728655465; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Lq4Y8undbJEJp/AjMGnPLFMSbix3IfAis2hjI9pLxzw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BIopibx0gUUIMoC8tCYDhx8qVTL3/cA6SSNlFSclSpudw0EDyCDqW5RJBcUrKal5e4MAUBdQuGJzrzbtoF3W45of0tfZxW/+9/M002mswBMzIm5nXVGO0xoHEUcmtbaDXTQ4s54EwpnAyvFwmu1N7rRjl4gS/5UtYGsDmkFDbdc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=ILnvlSKI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="ILnvlSKI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1728655462; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DRhRLpLKnYefoFaSDIxlE5yBFF4Hm/YYCFm64lls878=; b=ILnvlSKIYjEcgdC2z10rJqdeiJnRl5naFm7Z/p2ijV7XZpxDlToNbIbpb5vpMQeJ79vh6k dsNp4JDCXNrTLEqr+ny3Ex9mQ39vSpSKda+8lms9nNt3miwN/HWXzFRRVV1V/qOo07dj4p jq7H4jxnR+CKiJyrprGN62xe/UxDI7E= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-66-FHunU9kQMNGWthw0_pQRjg-1; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:04:19 -0400 X-MC-Unique: FHunU9kQMNGWthw0_pQRjg-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 469CF19560AD; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (unknown [10.22.32.133]) by mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52B8D1955F42; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:05:33 -0400 From: Brian Foster To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Chandan Babu R , "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] xfs: split xfs_trans_mod_sb Message-ID: References: <20240930164211.2357358-1-hch@lst.de> <20240930164211.2357358-8-hch@lst.de> <20241011075408.GB2749@lst.de> 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: <20241011075408.GB2749@lst.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.15 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. Brian