From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/19] fs: new API for handling inode->i_version Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 20:05:27 -0500 Message-ID: <1513472727.3428.15.camel@kernel.org> References: <20171216134656.15561-1-jlayton@kernel.org> <20171216134656.15561-2-jlayton@kernel.org> <20171216223720.GL5858@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, bfields@fieldses.org, neilb@suse.de, jack@suse.de, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, darrick.wong@oracle.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, clm@fb.com, jbacik@fb.com, dsterba@suse.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, dhowells@redhat.com To: Dave Chinner Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171216223720.GL5858@dastard> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2017-12-17 at 09:37 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 08:46:38AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > From: Jeff Layton > > > > Add a documentation blob that explains what the i_version field is, how > > it is expected to work, and how it is currently implemented by various > > filesystems. > > > > We already have inode_inc_iversion. Add several other functions for > > manipulating and accessing the i_version counter. For now, the > > implementation is trivial and basically works the way that all of the > > open-coded i_version accesses work today. > > > > Future patches will convert existing users of i_version to use the new > > API, and then convert the backend implementation to do things more > > efficiently. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > > --- > > include/linux/fs.h | 200 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 192 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > Just a random sunday morning coffee musing.... > > I was just wondering if it would be better to split this stuff out > into it's own header file now? include/linux/fs.h is aleady a > massive header file (~3500 lines) and changes cause tree-wide > rebuilds, so maybe it would be better to split relatively isolated > functionality like this out while it's being reworked and you're > already touching every file that uses it? > > Cheers, > > Dave. That's a good idea. Let me do that and I'll re-post. Thanks, -- Jeff Layton