On 2/12/20 7:41 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:51:18PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 12/31/19 7:11 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Refactor the open-coded test for whether or not we're over quota.
>>
>> Ooh, nice. This was horrible.
...
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * Check the limits and timers of a dquot and start or reset timers
>>> * if necessary.
>>> @@ -117,6 +128,8 @@ xfs_qm_adjust_dqtimers(
>>> struct xfs_mount *mp,
>>> struct xfs_disk_dquot *d)
>>> {
>>> + bool over;
>>> +
>>> ASSERT(d->d_id);
>>>
>>> #ifdef DEBUG
>>> @@ -131,71 +144,47 @@ xfs_qm_adjust_dqtimers(
>>> be64_to_cpu(d->d_rtb_hardlimit));
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> + over = xfs_quota_exceeded(&d->d_bcount, &d->d_blk_softlimit,
>>> + &d->d_blk_hardlimit);
>>> if (!d->d_btimer) {
>>> - if ((d->d_blk_softlimit && (be64_to_cpu(d->d_bcount) > be64_to_cpu(d->d_blk_softlimit))) ||
>>> - (d->d_blk_hardlimit && (be64_to_cpu(d->d_bcount) > be64_to_cpu(d->d_blk_hardlimit)))) {
>>> + if (over) {
>>
>> I wonder why we check the hard limit. Isn't exceeding the soft limit
>> enough to start the timer? Unrelated to the refactoring tho.
>
> Suppose there's only a hard limit set?
then you get EDQUOT straightaway and timers don't matter?
I guess if you set a soft limit after you go over a hard-limit-only and ...
meh, ain't broke don't fix?
-Eric
