On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 06:55:56PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 02:04 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > All the variables xfs_bmap_isaeof() is passed are contained within > > the xfs_bmalloca structure. Pass that instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This looks good. > > Now that the transaction pointer is available in > xfs_bmap_isaeof(), it gets used in the call to > xfs_bmap_last_extent(). It looks to me like > this means btree block buffers will be added to > and removed from the transaction's item list > in xfs_bmap_read_extents(), and that list will > be scanned for these buffers in xfs_trans_read_buf() > (unlike before). > > I don't question whether that's correct, but > is that desirable? Would we be just as well > off *not* providing the transaction pointer? We shouldn't do it, if just to avoid random changes in this patch. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
