On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 05:07:38AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:01:51AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > self-documenting, very much unlike a 'true' or 'false' argument. > > > > I'm fine with replacing the bool argument(s) with flags where applicable > > if we do eliminate the wrappers. I'm just hesitant to change it given > > the previous feedback to move away from something very close.. > > > > Dave, care to chime in here? As mentioned, I'll do a refactored v3 if > > there's some kind of consensus/agreement on a final approach. > > I've read the thread on the original patch now. While not my preference > I'm fine with doing an xfs_itruncate_extents_flags with a single > xfs_itruncate_extents wrapper and the same for bmapi, as long as we pass > flags instead of the bool, and don't add pointless wrappers for the > nodiscard case - those are just trickle down flags in general, so we > should keep things as simple as possible. Ok, do you mean to include xfs_free_extent() in that as well? E.g., xfs_free_extent_flags(..., XFS_EXTENT_BUSY_SKIP_DISCARD) vs. a single wrapper without _flags()? Note that that flag is still sourced from a boolean unless we also change the xfs_extent_free_item field, which I'm not sure makes sense. Alternatively, I could just kill the xfs_free_extent_nodiscard() wrapper and call the internal variant from the one place that wants to toggle discard behavior. 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
