On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:36:34PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 08:17:01AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > The active flag was in the allocation cursor originally and was moved to > > the private portion of the btree cursor simply because IIRC that's where > > you suggested to put it. > > My memory starts fading, but IIRC you had a separate containing > structure and I asked to move it into xfs_btree_cur itself. > Right, that's the "allocation cursor" structure. I'd eventually like to fold that into or with the existing allocation arg structure, but that's something for after the other allocation modes are converted. Anyways.. this was all buried in a single patch as well that makes it harder to dig out. For reference, the original feedback was here: https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=155750947225047&w=2 > > FWIW, that seems like the appropriate place to > > me because 1.) as of right now I don't have any other use case in mind > > outside of allocbt cursors 2.) flag state is similarly managed in the > > allocation btree helpers and 3.) the flag is not necessarily used as a > > generic btree cursor state (it is more accurately a superset of the > > generic btree state where the allocation algorithm can also make higher > > level changes). The latter bit is why it was originally put in the > > allocation tracking structure, FWIW. > > Ok, sounds fine with me for now. I just feels like doing it in the > generic code would actually be simpler than updating all the wrappers. Ok. It's not quite as simple due to the semantics described above. I'm not totally convinced the generic "active" state would exactly match the semantics used by the block allocation code. I'd hate to bury it in there as is and have it end up being a landmine or wart if it is not ever reused outside of extent allocation (or replaced with something cleaner, ideally). Brian
