On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:16:02AM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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. Agreed. AFAICT the first patch is a bug fix for broken functionality, so I will put it in the 5.9 branch update next week. --D > -Eric
