| Message ID | e86fb919694d8c57612c5690be77b27313325232.1575336816.git.osandov@fb.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: miscellaneous cleanups | expand |
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:34:25PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com> > > This hasn't been used since it was first introduced in commit > b4bd745d1230 ("btrfs: Introduce find_free_extent_ctl structure for later > rework"). > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > index 18df434bfe52..40c000269232 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > @@ -3437,7 +3437,6 @@ btrfs_release_block_group(struct btrfs_block_group *cache, > */ > struct find_free_extent_ctl { > /* Basic allocation info */ > - u64 ram_bytes; > u64 num_bytes; > u64 empty_size; > u64 flags; > @@ -3809,7 +3808,6 @@ static noinline int find_free_extent(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > > WARN_ON(num_bytes < fs_info->sectorsize); > > - ffe_ctl.ram_bytes = ram_bytes; > ffe_ctl.num_bytes = num_bytes; > ffe_ctl.empty_size = empty_size; > ffe_ctl.flags = flags; Either that or pass in a find_free_extent_ctl to btrfs_add_reserved_bytes() as ram_bytes, num_bytes and delalloc are set in ffe_ctl. I personally would favour passing in ffe_ctl to btrfs_add_reserved_bytes() as well as others like btrfs_add_free_space(), btrfs_free_reserved_bytes() and so on.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 02:27:13PM +0100, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:34:25PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com> > > > > This hasn't been used since it was first introduced in commit > > b4bd745d1230 ("btrfs: Introduce find_free_extent_ctl structure for later > > rework"). > > > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com> > > --- > > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 -- > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > > index 18df434bfe52..40c000269232 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > > @@ -3437,7 +3437,6 @@ btrfs_release_block_group(struct btrfs_block_group *cache, > > */ > > struct find_free_extent_ctl { > > /* Basic allocation info */ > > - u64 ram_bytes; > > u64 num_bytes; > > u64 empty_size; > > u64 flags; > > @@ -3809,7 +3808,6 @@ static noinline int find_free_extent(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > > > > WARN_ON(num_bytes < fs_info->sectorsize); > > > > - ffe_ctl.ram_bytes = ram_bytes; > > ffe_ctl.num_bytes = num_bytes; > > ffe_ctl.empty_size = empty_size; > > ffe_ctl.flags = flags; > > Either that or pass in a find_free_extent_ctl to btrfs_add_reserved_bytes() as > ram_bytes, num_bytes and delalloc are set in ffe_ctl. I personally would > favour passing in ffe_ctl to btrfs_add_reserved_bytes() as well as others like > btrfs_add_free_space(), btrfs_free_reserved_bytes() and so on. That might be more convenient but it feels a little icky and layer violating to me. It'd be nice to keep the space_info code separate from find_free_extent.
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c index 18df434bfe52..40c000269232 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c @@ -3437,7 +3437,6 @@ btrfs_release_block_group(struct btrfs_block_group *cache, */ struct find_free_extent_ctl { /* Basic allocation info */ - u64 ram_bytes; u64 num_bytes; u64 empty_size; u64 flags; @@ -3809,7 +3808,6 @@ static noinline int find_free_extent(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, WARN_ON(num_bytes < fs_info->sectorsize); - ffe_ctl.ram_bytes = ram_bytes; ffe_ctl.num_bytes = num_bytes; ffe_ctl.empty_size = empty_size; ffe_ctl.flags = flags;