On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:39:14PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Not sure I like the indenting of the second line. I'd prefer the
> parameters to have a little more indent or use three lines...
That whole area needs some larger refactoring / reformatting work.
I'll see if I can ad danother patch for that.
> > + ASSERT(field < XFS_SBS_ICOUNT || field > XFS_SBS_FDBLOCKS);
>
> That assert will cause issues with:
>
> > @@ -97,6 +99,8 @@ extern void xfs_icsb_sync_counters_locke
> > #define xfs_icsb_reinit_counters(mp) do { } while (0)
> > #define xfs_icsb_sync_counters(mp, flags) do { } while (0)
> > #define xfs_icsb_sync_counters_locked(mp, flags) do { } while (0)
> > +#define xfs_icsb_modify_counters(mp, field, delta, rsvd) \
> > + xfs_mod_incore_sb(mp, field, delta, rsvd)
> > #endif
>
> UP builds. Perhaps a CONFIG_SMP only assert? Given that the per-cpu
> counter rework I'm doing doesn't have a different code path for
> UP vs SMP, it'd only be a temporary concern....
Indeed, it should be conditional.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
