From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753761AbdFSIKI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 19 Jun 2017 04:10:08 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44128 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753674AbdFSIKF (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 19 Jun 2017 04:10:05 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:10:02 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@versity.com>, Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Mike Christie <mchristi@redhat.com>, Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/31] ext4: eliminate xattr entry e_hash recalculation
 for removes
Message-ID: <20170619081002.GC11837@quack2.suse.cz>
References: <20170614172340.18720-1-tahsin@google.com>
 <20170615091026.GG1764@quack2.suse.cz>
 <CAAeU0aMuV7EHw5ZwdF52__baS36CsaB4MN03iqUdyLh1Fc6HzA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAeU0aMuV7EHw5ZwdF52__baS36CsaB4MN03iqUdyLh1Fc6HzA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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