svn commit: r350390 - head/sys/kern

[Alan Somers]

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:11 AM Niclas Zeising
<zeising+freebsd at daemonic.se> wrote:
>
> On 2019-07-28 18:07, Alan Somers wrote:
> > Author: asomers
> > Date: Sun Jul 28 16:07:27 2019
> > New Revision: 350390
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/350390
> >
> > Log:
> >    Better comments for vlrureclaim
> >
> >    MFC after: 2 weeks
> >    Sponsored by:      The FreeBSD Foundation
> >
> > Modified:
> >    head/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c
> >
> > Modified: head/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- head/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c  Sun Jul 28 15:20:47 2019        (r350389)
> > +++ head/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c  Sun Jul 28 16:07:27 2019        (r350390)
> > @@ -947,9 +947,16 @@ vattr_null(struct vattr *vap)
> >    * desirable to reuse such vnodes.  These conditions may cause the
> >    * number of vnodes to reach some minimum value regardless of what
> >    * you set kern.maxvnodes to.  Do not set kern.maxvnodes too low.
> > + *
> > + * @param mp          Try to reclaim vnodes from this mountpoint
> > + * @param reclaim_nc_src Only reclaim directories with outgoing namecache
> > + *                    entries if this argument is strue
> > + * @param trigger     Only reclaim vnodes with fewer than this many resident
> > + *                    pages.
> > + * @return            The number of vnodes that were reclaimed.
> >    */
> >   static int
> > -vlrureclaim(struct mount *mp, int reclaim_nc_src, int trigger)
> > +vlrureclaim(struct mount *mp, bool reclaim_nc_src, int trigger)
> >   {
> >       struct vnode *vp;
> >       int count, done, target;
> > @@ -1238,7 +1245,8 @@ vnlru_proc(void)
> >   {
> >       struct mount *mp, *nmp;
> >       unsigned long onumvnodes;
> > -     int done, force, reclaim_nc_src, trigger, usevnodes;
> > +     int done, force, trigger, usevnodes;
> > +     bool reclaim_nc_src;
> >
> >       EVENTHANDLER_REGISTER(shutdown_pre_sync, kproc_shutdown, vnlruproc,
> >           SHUTDOWN_PRI_FIRST);
>
> Was this change intended?  It's not mentioned in the commit message.
> Thanks!
> Regards
> --
> Niclas

Yes, it was intended.  Since it makes no difference at runtime, I
thought of the type change as basically being documentation.  That's
why I didn't explicitly mention it.
-Alan