On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:37:02AM -0700, Richard Wareing wrote: > Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 08:52:38PM -0700, Richard Wareing wrote: > >>+ /* Pre-compute minimum data blocks required before > >>+ * falling back to RT device for allocations > >>+ */ > > > >Comment format. > > > >>+ mp->m_rt_min_fdblocks = min_blocks; > > > >Hmmm - I wonder if it would be better to tie this into the existing > >data device low space threshold code? > > > > Not sure what you mean here? The lowspace threshold code is just an array of thresholds at which we do trigger different behaviour. e.g. we trim maximum speculative delalloc space based one where free space falls in that table. If we add another entry in the table for the "switch to RT device at this low space" threshold, we don't need a specific variable in the struct xfs_mount.... > > >>+void xfs_rt_fallback( > >>+ struct xfs_inode *ip, > >>+ struct xfs_mount *mp) > > > >Mount first, then inode. > > > > Just for my own knowledge, is this a convention? Convention. I also missed that the return type goes on a separate line. i.e. void xfs_rt_fallback( struct xfs_mount *mp, struct xfs_inode *ip) It's different to the standard linux convention for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it's the historic format inherited from Irix but we kept it because it makes using grep to find a function declaration really easy (i.e. "^xfs_rt_fallback" finds the function declaration instead of all the callers) and there are functions with lots of parameters and the "run them all together in as few lines as possible" is hard on the eyes and requires reformatting of the entire function definition when one changes. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
