On 7/16/20 5:18 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:02:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: ... >> i.e. XFS_IALLOC_SPACE_RES() is used in just 7 places in the code, >> 4 of them are in that same header file, so it's a simple, standalone >> patch that fixes the bug by addressing the underlying cause of >> the problem (i.e. nasty macro!). >> > I agree that the inline is nicer than the macro, but a transaction > reservation value seems misplaced to me in the IGEO. Perhaps having > something analogous to struct xfs_trans_resv might be more appropriate. For whatever my opinion is worth these days, it seems like doing a survey to see how many of these reservations are static would be a good first step, and then decide where they should all go if they should move. I agree that IGEO might be a little odd, depending on what other static reservation types there are and what they're associated with. I see both sides of the discussion re: how fixes like this move forward and what's easily backportable but in this case (and maybe I'm missing context) it seems like a wider survey would be wise before deciding to move this one value to IGEO in particular. -Eric
