On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:57:35AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 08:03:06AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Remove the generic xfs_inode_walk and just open code the only caller. > > This is going in the wrong direction for me. Maybe. > > I was planning to combine the reclaim inode walk into this function, and > later on share it with inactivation. This made for one switch-happy > iteration function, but it meant there was only one loop. Ok, we can skip this for now if this gets in your way. Or I can resend a different patch 2 that just removes the no tag case for now. > OFC maybe the point that you and/or Dave were trying to make is that I > should be doing the opposite, and combining the inactivation loop into > what is now the (badly misnamed) xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag? And leave this > blockgc loop alone? That is my gut feeling. No guarantee it actually works out, and given that I've lead you down the wrong road a few times I already feel guily ahead of time..
