[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/1] ocfs2: add extent block stealing for ocfs2

[Tao Ma]

Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 06:12:53PM -0800, Sunil Mushran wrote:
>> The get and set routines are a bit convoluted. I agree with the hiding 
>> of the
>> type by adding ocfs2_steal_meta() and  ocfs2_steal_inode(). But the get/set
>> routines will be better off just accepting the type.
>>
>> Right now the flow is:
>>
>> ocfs2_steal_resource()
>> +                       if (type == INODE_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE)
>> +                               ocfs2_set_inode_steal_slot(osb, slot);
>>
>> ocfs2_set_inode_steal_slot()
>> +       return ocfs2_set_steal_slot(osb, slot, INODE_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE);
>>
>> ocfs2_set_steal_slot()
>> +       if (type == INODE_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE)
>> +               osb->s_inode_steal_slot = slot;
> 
> 	I see your point.  First, most of the slot stealing functions
> don't belong in the header at all.  They're only used in suballoc.c, so
> make them static there.
> 	The set routine is only called from ocfs2_steal_resource().  It
> should take the type, because the type is already there.  The get
> routines are called from other places.
> 	ocfs2_steal_resource() should call __ocfs2_set_steal_slot()
> directly.  No need for ocfs2_set_{inode,meta}_steal_slot().  Those
> should be removed.  ocfs2_steal_resource() should call
> __ocfs2_get_steal_slot() directly to pass the type.  The other callers
> of ocfs2_get_{inode,meta}_steal_slot() remain the same.
I tried to catch up with the discussion. agreed with Joel.
In ocfs2_steal_resource, we know the type, so just call 
__ocfs2_{set,get}_steal_slot function with type should be ok.

Regards,
Tao