xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sbcount comment change

To: <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: sbcount comment change
From: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:36:32 -0500
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1309366188.5505.6215.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1309366188.5505.6215.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: <aelder@xxxxxxx>
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 09:49 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Does this look fine ?

Yes.  But it's small enough that I think you should just
include this change with another change (especially if you
decide to drop the "sync" flag from this function as I
suggested).

                                        -Alex

> --------------
> @@ -1568,18 +1568,14 @@ xfs_fs_writable(xfs_mount_t *mp)
>  /*
>   * xfs_log_sbcount
>   *
> - * Called either periodically to keep the on disk superblock values
> - * roughly up to date or from unmount to make sure the values are
> - * correct on a clean unmount.
> + * Sync the superblock counters to disk.
>   *
>   * Note this code can be called during the process of freezing, so
> - * we may need to use the transaction allocator which does not not
> + * we may need to use the transaction allocator which does not
>   * block when the transaction subsystem is in its frozen state.
>   */
> ----------------
> 

        

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: sbcount comment change, Alex Elder <=