[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101130043817.GE3556@dastard>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:38:17 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: xfs@....sgi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs: demultiplex xfs_icsb_modify_counters()
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:19:20AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:36:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
> >
> > With the conversion to percpu counters, xfs_icsb_modify_counters() really does
> > not need to exist. Convert the inode counter modifications to use a common
> > helper function for the one place that calls them, and add another function for
> > the free block modification and convert all the callers to use that.
>
> > +xfs_icsb_modify_inodes(
> > + xfs_mount_t *mp,
>
> struct xfs_mount, please.
>
> > + int cntr,
> > + int64_t delta,
> > + int rsvd)
>
> the rsvd argument isn't used at all.
>
> > +{
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + ASSERT(cntr == XFS_ICSB_ICOUNT || cntr == XFS_ICSB_IFREE);
> > +
> > + ret = xfs_icsb_add(mp, cntr, delta, 0);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + ASSERT(0);
> > + return XFS_ERROR(EINVAL);
> > + }
> > + return 0;
>
> You could get rdif of the ret argument as we don't care about the
> value. I also don't think we need the assert here - the caller already
> does one for us.
>
> > +xfs_icsb_modify_free_blocks(
> > + xfs_mount_t *mp,
>
> same here.
Ok, makes sense. I'll clean it up.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists