On 04/22 2014 07:52 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:11:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 08:58:21AM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: >>> From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> In xfs_bulkstat_single(), call xfs_bulkstat_one() and xfs_bulkstat() >>> would return different error if either failed, we'd better return the >>> proper error in this case. Moreover, the function argument done is >>> useless in terms of xfs_ioc_bulkstat(), hence we can get rid of it. >> >> I've looked at xfs_bulkstat_single I really can't see how falling back >> to the full xfs_bulkstat could fix any error. We probably should just >> get rid of the fallback and instead do something like the (lightly tested) >> patch below: >> >> --- >> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> >> Subject: xfs: remove xfs_bulkstat_single >> >> xfs_bukstat_one doesn't have any failure case that would go away when >> called through xfs_bulkstat, so remove the fallback and the now unessecary >> xfs_bulkstat_single function. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > *nod* > > I like this approach :) I reconsidered the call interface in xfs_fsr and xfs_io/parent. Yep, your idea is better and the patch looks good to me. Thanks, -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
