On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:37:18AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Ah, I see, you're asking why don't I make xfs_inode_walk responsible for
> deciding what to do about EAGAIN, instead of open-coding that in the
> ->execute function. That would be a nice cleanup since the walk
> function already has special casing for EFSCORRUPTED.
>
> If I read you correctly, the relevant part of xfs_inode_walk becomes:
>
> error = execute(batch[i]...);
> xfs_irele(batch[i]);
> if (error == -EAGAIN) {
> if (args->flags & EOF_SYNC)
> skipped++;
> continue;
> }
>
> and the relevant part of xfs_inode_free_eofblocks becomes:
>
> if (!xfs_ilock_nowait(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL))
> return -EAGAIN;
>
> I think that would work, and afaict it won't cause any serious problems
> with the deferred inactivation series.
Exactly!
