Re: review [1 of 3]: lazy superblock counters - core kernel

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:28:08AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > This is really quite nasty.  Should we at least force a cache flush here?
> 
> Ok, so the patch I sent out was an older version that had a very similar
> name to the current patch in my series (xfs-lazy-sb vs xfs_lazy_sb).
> This code doesn't exist in the version I should have sent out.
> 
> The latest version, plus the changes suggested here and with the
> second patch folded back into it is attached.

Looks like in the new code we simply ignore log reservation
failures in xfs_log_sbcount?

Otherwise this looks good to me.

converting all sb feature checks to use the inlines would be
a nice cleanup opportunity for someone bored :)