Re: [PATCH RFC 02/10] xfs: Refactor xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent()

[John Garry]

On 05/02/2025 19:50, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
> > index 59f7fc16eb80..580469668334 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
> > @@ -786,35 +786,20 @@ xfs_reflink_update_quota(
> >    * requirements as low as possible.
> >    */
> >   STATIC int
> > -xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent(
> > +xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent_locked(
> >   	struct xfs_inode	*ip,
> >   	xfs_fileoff_t		*offset_fsb,
> > -	xfs_fileoff_t		end_fsb)
> > +	xfs_fileoff_t		end_fsb,
> > +	struct xfs_trans	*tp,
> > +	bool			*commit)
> Transactions usually come before the inode in the parameter list.

ok

> You don't need to pass out a @commit flag -- if the function returns
> nonzero then the caller has to cancel the transaction; otherwise it will
> return zero and the caller should commit it.>  There's no penalty for
> committing a non-dirty transaction.

If there is no penalty, then fine. But I don't feel totally comfortable 
with this and would prefer to keep the same behavior.

Thanks,
John