On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 04:21:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 08:39:56AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > Ok, codewise I don't have much of a preference, but I don't think it's > > worth redoing the regression testing and lowmem testing and whatnot just > > to change how the guts are refactored here. What's the endgame? > > Avoid the nasty duplication as much as possible. I think your patch > already goes a long way towards that, but I'd rather go all the way. > That's what I figured, thanks. > > I came > > up with the following on top of patch 2. Compile tested only, and I can > > refold the _common() helper back into the caller and invert the > > nowait logic or whatnot.. > > Mostly looks fine, except that it seems pointless to have > __xfs_buf_submit_common around instead of merging it into the only > caller. > Yes.. > > + if (!(bp->b_flags & XBF_ASYNC) && !sync_nowait) > > Also I'd rather pass in a > > 'bool wait' parameter. > > xfs_buf_submit() would set it based on XBF_ASYNC, and the delwri > code would just set it to false explicitly. A patch with the above changes is essentially what I put through some testing over the weekend. It doesn't look like anything exploded, so I'll try to get it cleaned up and posted later today. 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
