[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E4913B36-9018-4915-9E3F-4CBD73DEF7BE@dilger.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:42:09 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>
Cc: "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 27/28] ext4: xattr inode deduplication
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> Tashin, we are already using the "no_mbcache" option name, so would prefer
>> to keep that working. It would be OK to accept both option names to mean
>> the same thing, and only document the "nombcache" option.
>
> Updated patch to accept both nombcache and no_mbcache.
>
>>> struct mb_cache *s_mb_cache;
>>> + struct mb_cache *s_ea_inode_cache;
>>
>> These names should be consistent, like "s_ea_block_cache".
>
> Yes, I will rename this to s_ea_block_cache.
>
>>> #define EXT4_GET_MB_CACHE(inode) (((struct ext4_sb_info *) \
>>> inode->i_sb->s_fs_info)->s_mb_cache)
>>>
>>> +#define EA_INODE_CACHE(inode) (((struct ext4_sb_info *) \
>>> + inode->i_sb->s_fs_info)->s_ea_inode_cache)
>>
>> These names should be consistent, like EXT4_GET_EA_CACHE() or maybe
>> EXT4_GET_EA_BLOCK_CACHE() and EXT4_GET_EA_INODE_CACHE().
>
> How about EA_BLOCK_CACHE() and EA_INODE_CACHE() to keep them short?
Sure, that is fine since these macros are local to xattr.c.
Cheers, Andreas
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (196 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists