xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: simplify xfs_trans_ijoin* again

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: simplify xfs_trans_ijoin* again
From: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:09:57 -0500
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20110919150054.GA21382@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20110919150054.GA21382@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: <aelder@xxxxxxx>
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 11:00 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> There is no reason to keep a reference to the inode even if we unlock
> it during transaction commit because we never drop a reference between
> the ijoin and commit.  Also use this fact to merge xfs_trans_ijoin_ref
> back into xfs_trans_ijoin - the third argument decides if an unlock
> is needed now.
> 
> I'm actually starting to wonder if allowing inodes to be unlocked
> at transaction commit really is worth the effort.  The only real
> benefit is that they can be unlocked earlier when commiting a
> synchronous transactions, but that could be solved by doing the
> log force manually after the unlock, too.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>

Looks good.

Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [PATCH] xfs: simplify xfs_trans_ijoin* again, Alex Elder <=