On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 08:15:30AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> /*
> + * Initialise a newly allocated inode and return the in-core inode to the
> + * caller locked exclusively.
> */
> -static int
> -xfs_ialloc(
> - xfs_trans_t *tp,
> - xfs_inode_t *pip,
> - umode_t mode,
> - xfs_nlink_t nlink,
> - dev_t rdev,
> - prid_t prid,
> - xfs_buf_t **ialloc_context,
> - xfs_inode_t **ipp)
> +static struct xfs_inode *
> +xfs_dir_ialloc_init(
This is boderline bikeshedding, but I would just call this
xfs_init_new_inode.
> int
> xfs_dir_ialloc(
> @@ -954,83 +908,59 @@ xfs_dir_ialloc(
> xfs_inode_t **ipp) /* pointer to inode; it will be
> locked. */
> {
> xfs_inode_t *ip;
> xfs_buf_t *ialloc_context = NULL;
> + xfs_ino_t pino = dp ? dp->i_ino : 0;
Maybe spell out parent_inode? pino reminds of some of the weird Windows
code that start all variable names for pointers with a "p".
> + /* Initialise the newly allocated inode. */
> + ip = xfs_dir_ialloc_init(*tpp, dp, ino, mode, nlink, rdev, prid);
> + if (IS_ERR(ip))
> + return PTR_ERR(ip);
> + *ipp = ip;
> return 0;
I wonder if we should just return the inode by reference from
xfs_dir_ialloc_init as well, as that nicely fits the calling convention
in the caller, i.e. this could become
return xfs_init_new_inode(*tpp, dp, ino, mode, nlink, rdev, prid, ipp);
Note with the right naming we don't really need the comment either,
as the function name should explain everything.
