On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:16:55PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On 10/22/2012 09:31 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:17:12AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > >> + flags = (eofb.eof_flags & XFS_EOF_FLAGS_SYNC) ? SYNC_WAIT : SYNC_TRYLOCK; > > > > Line if a bit too long. However, would it be better to place this > > inside xfs_icache_free_eofblocks()? > > Are you suggesting to eliminate the flags parameter to > xfs_icache_free_eofblocks? The reason for the current interface is that > the background scan caller doesn't require the eofb parameter, so I > decided to generalize the sync/wait parameter in the caller. That's on possibility. I was thinking more of flags = 0, and parsing the eofb structure for meaning inside xfs_icache_free_eofblocks(). i.e. it overrides flags. > If we want to push it into xfs_icache_free_eofblocks(), I think it would > be better at that point to eliminate the flags param and either infer > SYNC_TRYLOCK on a NULL eofb or to require an eofb and pass one with > a cleared XFS_EOF_FLAGS_SYNC from the background scan. Thoughts? Sounds good - a NULL eofb meaning "default background scan" works for me. If we want anything other than default scan parameters, use the eofb to be precise.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
