On 3/24/15 5:59 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > When doing RENAME_WHITEOUT, we now have to lock 5 inodes into the > rename transaction. This means we need to update > xfs_sort_for_rename() and xfs_lock_inodes() to handle up to 5 > inodes. Because of the vagaries of rename, this means we could have > anywhere between 3 and 5 inodes locked into the transaction.... > > While xfs_lock_inodes() does not need anything other than an assert > telling us we are passing more inodes that we ever thought we should > see, it could do with a logic rework to remove all the indenting. > This is not a functional change - it just makes the code a lot > easier to read. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> ... > @@ -2681,19 +2668,22 @@ xfs_remove( > /* > * Enter all inodes for a rename transaction into a sorted array. > */ > +#define __XFS_SORT_INODES 5 > STATIC void > xfs_sort_for_rename( > - xfs_inode_t *dp1, /* in: old (source) directory inode */ > - xfs_inode_t *dp2, /* in: new (target) directory inode */ > - xfs_inode_t *ip1, /* in: inode of old entry */ > - xfs_inode_t *ip2, /* in: inode of new entry, if it > - already exists, NULL otherwise. */ > - xfs_inode_t **i_tab,/* out: array of inode returned, sorted */ > - int *num_inodes) /* out: number of inodes in array */ > + struct xfs_inode *dp1, /* in: old (source) directory inode */ > + struct xfs_inode *dp2, /* in: new (target) directory inode */ > + struct xfs_inode *ip1, /* in: inode of old entry */ > + struct xfs_inode *ip2, /* in: inode of new entry */ > + struct xfs_inode *wino, /* in: whiteout inode */ I'm not 100% morally opposed, but you still have a wino lurking around here ;) Patch5 uses *wip, so if you want consistency, might consider that. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
