> - struct xfs_trans_res tres;
> + struct xfs_trans_res *tres;
> uint resblks;
>
> trace_xfs_create(dp, name);
> @@ -1181,14 +1181,21 @@ xfs_create(
> if (is_dir) {
> rdev = 0;
> resblks = XFS_MKDIR_SPACE_RES(mp, name->len);
> - tres.tr_logres = M_RES(mp)->tr_mkdir.tr_logres;
> - tres.tr_logcount = XFS_MKDIR_LOG_COUNT;
> + tres = &M_RES(mp)->tr_mkdir;
The (nice) reservation cleanup should be a patch of it's own.
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * If we don't have a name, we're in the ->tmpfile() path. We
> + * have a unique transaction here since we modify the unlinked
> + * list rather than create a directory entry.
> + */
How is that transaction more "uniqueue" than the others? Seems like
this comment generally doesn't add a whole lot of value.
> + if (name) {
> + xfs_ilock(dp, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_PARENT);
> + unlock_dp_on_error = true;
> +
> + error = xfs_dir_canenter(tp, dp, name, resblks);
> + if (error)
> + goto out_trans_cancel;
> + }
So we get another special case in this function. Can't say I like that
too much, on the other hand I don't really like the duplicate code
either. So I'm not excited about this, but also not strongly against it.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
