On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:46:09AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:37:44PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 06:30:21AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > I'd expect to move it close to stuct xfs_mount, and maybe even merge > > > > it into that in the long run. > > > > > > I guess moving the structure there is fine, but we still want all > > > the version functions to be shared with userspace, which then makes > > > for an interesting set of dependencies. Any other ideas? > > > > Are they really worth the sharing? If they are worth it we'll > > need somethign that can expect a xfs_sb/xfs_mount to be defined. > > I suppose we could stop sharing them - they change rarely enough > and it's only a few lines of code for each new feature that would > then need to be duplicated. Not a huge burden... Just a further thought on this - I might keep the per-cpu counters in the struct mount. That way the to/from disk code only needs to sum/set the per-cpu counter values to/from the m_sb as they currently do and so the xfs_sb can remain unchanged for the moment. That might be a cleaner way to start this patchset, especially as we already have the per-cpu counter hooks in all the places we need them. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
