On 09/04/2013 10:54 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 02:25:07PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >> An inode free operation can have several effects on the finobt. If >> all inodes have been freed and the chunk deallocated, we remove the >> finobt record. If the inode chunk was previously full, we must >> insert a new record based on the existing inobt record. Otherwise, >> we modify the record in place. >> >> Create the xfs_ifree_finobt() function to identify the potential >> scenarios and update the finobt appropriately. > > The first thing I'd do is factor all the inobt manipulation > code xfs_difree() into a xfs_difree_inobt() helper function. have it > return the record and offset that is then passed to your new helper > xfs_difree_finobt(). That way xfs_difree() really becomes the setup > function for the two btree operations rather than containing one set > of modifications and calling a function to do the other... > Sounds logical. >> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c | 120 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c >> index 516f4af..96f71b5 100644 >> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c >> @@ -198,6 +198,117 @@ xfs_inobt_insert( >> } >> >> /* >> + * Free an inode in the free inode btree. >> + */ >> +STATIC int >> +xfs_ifree_finobt( ... > > I can't say I'm a great fan of the layout of the logic. Yes, there's > lots of cases to handle. It looks like: > Yeah, I've shuffled this code around quite a bit myself. > lookup() > if (found) > modify in place > if (found && full && deleting chunks) > delete record > else if (!found && no record) > insert record > else if (found) > update record > else > corruption! > > I think it woul dbe better to get then "!found" case out of the way > at the start. ie > > if (i == 0) { > if (ibtrec->ir_freecount == 1) > insert record > else > CORRUPTION > goto out; > } > > /* found a record, no need to check i == 1 anymore */ > ASSERT(i == 1); > > /* read and update */ > > if (full && deleting chunks) > delete record > else > update record > Ok, I'll try to pull that logic up and see what falls out. ... >> + } else if ((i == 0) && (ibtrec->ir_freecount == 1)) { >> + /* >> + * No existing finobt record and the inobt record has a single >> + * free inode. This means we've freed an inode in a previously >> + * fully allocated chunk. Insert a new record into the finobt >> + * based on the current inobt record. >> + */ >> + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_startino = ibtrec->ir_startino; >> + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_free = ibtrec->ir_free; >> + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_freecount = ibtrec->ir_freecount; >> + error = xfs_btree_insert(cur, &i); >> + if (error) >> + goto error; >> + ASSERT(i == 1); > > That's rather similar to the code in xfs_inobt_insert(). Indeed, > is you write a helper - xfs_inobt_insert_rec() - for this, then rather than modifying > xfs_inobt_lookup() to take extra parameters like I wondered for the > previous patch, leave it alonge and pass the parameters to > xfs_inobt_insert_rec() instead. > > Then this code is functionally identical to xfs_inobt_insert() done > during allocation.... > I think I'm parsing you after having another look at the code. xfs_inobt_lookup() remains as is and is potentially used from xfs_inobt_insert(). xfs_inobt_insert_rec() is introduced to set the cursor fields and do the insert and is used here and from xfs_inobt_insert(). At that point, this looks close to xfs_inobt_insert(), but I think using that here would introduce a duplicate lookup. Regardless, we'll see what the whole thing looks like at that point. Thanks for the reviews. :) Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs