[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080605153701.GB25477@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:37:01 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: cmm@...ibm.com, sandeen@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] ext4: Use inode preallocation with -o noextents
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:13:29PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
> Something like below ? . I will send a final patch once I get the
> patchqueu updated. I am not able to reach repo.or.cz currently.
This is better, but it still means that we are exporting a large
number of functions to the callers. It's not clear to me we need so
many different variants of ext4_new_blocks_* --- what is their
justification to exist?
For example, why not just have:
static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_new_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
ext4_lblk_t iblock, ext4_fsblk_t goal,
unsigned long *count, int *errp, int meta)
where if inode is NULL, then you're allocating a metadata block, and
if count is NULL, then you only want one block. Of course, this needs
to be carefully documented at the function.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists