On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:11:43PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > -int xfs_defer_finish(struct xfs_trans **tp, struct xfs_defer_ops *dop); > > -void xfs_defer_cancel(struct xfs_defer_ops *dop); > > +int xfs_defer_finish(struct xfs_trans **tp); > > +void __xfs_defer_cancel(struct xfs_defer_ops *dop); > > > index dc79e3c1d3e8..5170e89bec02 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h > > @@ -214,6 +214,9 @@ xfs_trans_read_buf( > > flags, bpp, ops); > > } > > > > +/* cancel dfops associated with a transaction */ > > +void xfs_defer_cancel(struct xfs_trans *); > > Is there any good reason not to keep xfs_defer_cancel in xfs_defer.[ch]? > Hmm, I originally had this as an inline in the header, so it was in xfs_trans.h for similar reasons xfs_defer_ops was moved over there (the function has to access tp->t_dfops). I happened to change this over to a non-inline function in v2, but just left it here for whatever reason. I could probably move it, but I don't think it's worth it as I already have patches that kill this wrapper off by updating the only __xfs_defer_cancel() caller (log recovery) to use an empty container transaction instead of the external dfops. That will be part of the next set of patches that reduce xfs_defer_ops to a single list_head and subsequently eliminate the need for the structure... Brian > Otherwise this looks good: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > -- > 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
