lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 30/31] ext4: eliminate xattr entry e_hash recalculation for removes
On Fri 16-06-17 19:04:44, Tahsin Erdogan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > I agree with moving ext4_xattr_rehash_entry() out of ext4_xattr_rehash().
> > However how about just keeping ext4_xattr_rehash() in
> > ext4_xattr_block_set() (so that you don't have to pass aditional argument
> > to ext4_xattr_set_entry()) and calling ext4_xattr_rehash_entry() when
> > i->value != NULL? That would seem easier and cleaner as well...
>
> The is_block parameter is also used to decide whether block reserve
> check should be performed:
>
> @@ -1500,8 +1502,8 @@ static int ext4_xattr_set_entry(struct ext4_xattr_info *i,
> * attribute block so that a long value does not occupy the
> * whole space and prevent futher entries being added.
> */
> - if (ext4_has_feature_ea_inode(inode->i_sb) && new_size &&
> - (s->end - s->base) == i_blocksize(inode) &&
> + if (ext4_has_feature_ea_inode(inode->i_sb) &&
> + new_size && is_block &&
> (min_offs + old_size - new_size) <
> EXT4_XATTR_BLOCK_RESERVE(inode)) {
> ret = -ENOSPC;
>
> Because of that, I think moving ext4_xattr_rehash to caller makes it
> bit more complicated. Let me know if you disagree.

What I dislike is the leakage of information about particular type of
storage into ext4_xattr_set_entry(). However I agree that it would be
cumbersome to handle this reservation check differently so ok.

Honza

--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-19 10:10    [W:0.046 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site