svn commit: r350390 - head/sys/kern

[Niclas Zeising]

On 2019-07-28 18:14, Alan Somers wrote:
> 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.

Ok!
Thank you for the explanation.
Regards
-- 
Niclas