On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 12:50:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:20:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 03:41:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Disentangle the dqrele_all inode grab code from the "generic" inode walk > > > grabbing code, and and use the opportunity to document why the dqrele > > > grab function does what it does. > > > > > > Since dqrele_all is the only user of XFS_ICI_NO_TAG, rename it to > > > something more specific for what we're doing. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > fs/xfs/xfs_icache.h | 4 ++- > > > 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > > > index 34b8b5fbd60d..5501318b5db0 100644 > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > > > @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ > > > > > > #include <linux/iversion.h> > > > > > > +static bool xfs_dqrele_inode_grab(struct xfs_inode *ip); > > > + > > > > Just mov the function higher up in the file rather than add forward > > declarations.... > > Ugh, this will cause churn that will ripple through this and the next > iwalk refactoring patchsets and deferred inactivation. Can I please > please please defer the churn cleanup until the end of all that? Yes, by all means. I don't want to make it harder to get stuff done, so moving stuff around at the end of the series is fine... .... > > This is basically just duplication of xfs_inode_walk_ag_grab() > > without the XFS_INODE_WALK_INEW_WAIT check in it. At this point I > > just don't see a reason for this function or the > > XFS_ICI_DQRELE_NONTAG rename just to use this grab function... > > Ugh. I should have sent the /next/ iwalk refactoring series along with > this one so that it would become more obvious that the end goal is to > seal all the incore inode walk code in xfs_icache.c, since there are > only four of them (reclaim, inodegc, blockgc, quotaoff) and the grab > functions for all four are just different enough that it's not really > worth it to keep them combined in one function full of conditionals. > > Once that's done, the only user of xfs_inode_walk_ag_grab is the blockgc > code and I can rename it. Ok, that context is missing from the patch series. :/ > Ofc the reason I held back is that the next series adds 8 more iwalk > cleanup patches, and the more patches I send all at once the longer it > takes for anyone to start looking at it. I /still/ can't figure out the > balance between risking overwhelming everyone with too many patches vs. > sending insufficient patches to convey where I'm really going with > something. Yeah, can be difficult. I prefer to err on the side of "complete change" rather than splitting two parts of a larger work arbitrarily... > <shrug> I might just ping you on irc so that we can have a conversation > about this and summarize whatever we come up with for the list. You've got a branch with the full series in it somewhere, I'm guessing? point me at it so I can see where this ends up.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
