On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:51:47AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 05:53:00PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>

Disentangle the dqrele_all inode grab code from the "generic" inode walk
grabbing code, and and use the opportunity to document why the dqrele
grab function does what it does.  Since xfs_inode_walk_ag_grab is now
only used for blockgc, rename it to reflect that.

Ultimately, there will be four reasons to perform a walk of incore
inodes: quotaoff dquote releasing (dqrele), garbage collection of
speculative preallocations (blockgc), reclamation of incore inodes
(reclaim), and deferred inactivation (inodegc).  Each of these four have
their own slightly different criteria for deciding if they want to
handle an inode, so it makes more sense to have four cohesive igrab
functions than one confusing parameteric grab function like we do now.

Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c |   66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Looks ok - one minor nit:

quoted

@@ -1642,6 +1682,22 @@ xfs_blockgc_free_quota(
 
 /* XFS Incore Inode Walking Code */
 
+static inline bool
+xfs_grabbed_for_walk(
+	enum xfs_icwalk_goal	goal,
+	struct xfs_inode	*ip,
+	int			iter_flags)
+{
+	switch (goal) {
+	case XFS_ICWALK_BLOCKGC:
+		return xfs_blockgc_igrab(ip, iter_flags);
+	case XFS_ICWALK_DQRELE:
+		return xfs_dqrele_igrab(ip);
+	default:
+		return false;
+	}
+}

xfs_icwalk_grab() seems to make more sense here.

Ok, changed.

/me is wondering if all this should eventually end up under a
xfs_icwalk namespace?

Yeah, I'll throw a renamer patch on the end of this series.  Or possibly
just do it after I move the xfs_inode_walk functions to the bottom.

--D

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com