On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:21:40PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Merge these two inode walk loops together, since they're pretty similar
> now. Get rid of XFS_ICI_NO_TAG since nobody uses it.
The laster user of XFS_ICI_NO_TAG was quotoff, and the last reference
was removed in "xfs: remove indirect calls from xfs_inode_walk{,_ag}".
So I think it should be dropped there, or even better in a prep patch
removing all the XFS_ICI_NO_TAG code before that one.
> +static inline bool
> +selected_for_walk(
> + unsigned int tag,
> + struct xfs_inode *ip)
> +{
> + switch (tag) {
> + case XFS_ICI_BLOCKGC_TAG:
> + return xfs_blockgc_grab(ip);
> + case XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG:
> + return xfs_reclaim_inode_grab(ip);
> + default:
> + return false;
> + }
> +}
Maybe name ths something that starts with xfs_ and ends with _grab?
> * and release all incore inodes with the given radix tree @tag.
> @@ -786,12 +803,14 @@ xfs_inode_walk_ag(
> bool done;
> int nr_found;
>
> - ASSERT(tag == XFS_ICI_BLOCKGC_TAG);
> + ASSERT(tag < RADIX_TREE_MAX_TAGS);
>
> restart:
> done = false;
> skipped = 0;
> first_index = 0;
> + if (tag == XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG)
> + first_index = READ_ONCE(pag->pag_ici_reclaim_cursor);
if / else to make this clear?
> for (i = 0; i < nr_found; i++) {
> if (!batch[i])
> continue;
> - error = xfs_blockgc_scan_inode(batch[i], eofb);
> - xfs_irele(batch[i]);
> + switch (tag) {
> + case XFS_ICI_BLOCKGC_TAG:
> + error = xfs_blockgc_scan_inode(batch[i], eofb);
> + xfs_irele(batch[i]);
> + break;
> + case XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG:
> + xfs_reclaim_inode(batch[i], pag);
> + error = 0;
Maybe move the irele into xfs_blockgc_scan_inode to make the calling
conventions more similar?
