On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 07:46:12AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 07:49:32AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > /* > > > > + * Check whether the replace operation need more blocks. > > > > + */ > > > > +bool > > > > +xfs_dir2_sf_replace_needblock( > > > > > > Urgggh. This is a predicate that we only ever call from xfs_rename(), > > > right? And it addresses a particular quirk of the locking when the > > > caller wants us to rename on top of an existing entry and drop the link > > > count of the old inode, right? So why can't this just be a predicate in > > > xfs_inode.c ? Nobody else needs to know this particular piece of > > > information, AFAICT. > > > > > > (Apologies, for Brian and I clearly aren't on the same page about > > > that...) > > > > > > > Hmm.. the crux of my feedback on the previous version was simply that if > > we wanted to take this approach of pulling up lower level dir logic into > > the higher level rename code, to simply factor out the existing checks > > down in the dir replace code that currently trigger a format conversion, > > and use that new helper in both places. That doesn't appear to be what > > this patch does, and I'm not sure why there are now two new helpers that > > each only have one caller instead of one new helper with two callers... > > Aha, got it. I'd wondered if that had been your intent. :) So as a structural question: should this be folded into xfs_dir_canenter(), which is the function used to check if the directory modification can go ahead without allocating blocks.... This seems very much like it is a "do we need to allocate blocks during the directory modification?" sort of question being asked here... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
