On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 09:58:01AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 02:08:08PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > This seems Ok, but I don't think it's very elegant to have callers pass > > a total parameter along with a flag to ignore it. Couldn't we just set > > minleft when total is not used and pass zero from those particular > > callers, or do we actually need to support the !BESTEFFORT && total == 0 > > case? > > We could do that, in in context of just this patch it would even seem > cleaner. But for the next merge window I have changes queued up that > remove the total parameter and it's passing along the dir/da_btree > code entirely by looking at the transaction reservation for the > !BESTEFFORT case, which I thikn is even better as a grand scheme. > Ok, then there is probably justification for the flag. In which case, I think the tweak and assertion below at least helps clarify the semantics of the call. > > (At the very least, we could assert that total == 0 when > > BESTEFFORT is set.) > > Sure. Thanks. Brian > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
