xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 07/18] xfs: don't use vfs writeback for pure metadata modific

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/18] xfs: don't use vfs writeback for pure metadata modifications
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:17:22 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100915001423.GJ15695@dastard>
References: <1284461777-1496-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1284461777-1496-8-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100914145447.GE3400@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100915001423.GJ15695@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:14:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Oh, I missed that one in the twisty passages of the setattr code.
> I'll do another (more careful) pass across all the callers, and for
> those that are outside a transaction I'll add a separate call to
> xfs_mark_inode_dirty_sync() for them.

I'd prefer to be on the safe side - rename xfs_ichgtime to
xfs_trans_inode_chgtime or similar, and assert that the added
transaction-argument is non-zero and the inode is locked and added
to the transactions.  That way it's easier to spot which timestamp
updates are transactional and which not.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>