From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD3FC433F5 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:02:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3998561244 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:02:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 3998561244 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BE722900002; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B95116B0072; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:02:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A365D900002; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:02:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0170.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963926B0071 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477098248D7C for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:02:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78590427006.22.3FB7A5B Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D686F3000110 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:02:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-72-74-133-215.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.74.133.215]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 18FH2TuF020081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:02:29 -0400 Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 3862A15C3424; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:02:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:02:29 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: NeilBrown Cc: Andrew Morton , Andreas Dilger , "Darrick J. Wong" , Matthew Wilcox , Mel Gorman , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] EXT4: Remove ENOMEM/congestion_wait() loops. Message-ID: References: <163157808321.13293.486682642188075090.stgit@noble.brown> <163157838437.13293.14244628630141187199.stgit@noble.brown> <163168354018.3992.580533638417199797@noble.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <163168354018.3992.580533638417199797@noble.neil.brown.name> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D686F3000110 X-Stat-Signature: 7jg66taqux4ci1wa1ybzkzfqgjsu1hea Authentication-Results: imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=none (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of tytso@mit.edu has no SPF policy when checking 18.9.28.11) smtp.mailfrom=tytso@mit.edu; dmarc=none X-HE-Tag: 1631725362-348533 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 03:25:40PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > Adding gfp_mask to __ext4_journal_start_sb() make perfect sense. > There doesn't seem much point adding one to __ext4_journal_start(), > we can have ext4_journal_start_with_revoke() call > __ext4_journal_start_sb() directly. > But I cannot see what it doesn't already do that. > i.e. why have the inline __ext4_journal_start() at all? > Is it OK if I don't use that for ext4_journal_start_with_revoke()? Sure. I think the only reason why we have __ext4_journal_start() as an inline function at all was for historical reasons. That is, we modified __ext4_journal_start() so that it took a struct super, and instead of changing all of the macros which called __ext4_journal_start(), we named it to be __ext4_journal_start_sb() and added the inline definition of __ext4_journal_start() to avoid changing all of the existing users of __ext4_journal_start(). So sure, it's fine not to use that for ext4_journal_start_with_revoke(), and we probably should clean up the use of __ext4_journal_start() at some point. That's unrelated to your work, though. Cheers, - Ted