xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: flush both inodes in xfs_swap_extents

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: flush both inodes in xfs_swap_extents
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 13:19:31 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140801124401.GA3582@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1406787128-11897-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1406787128-11897-3-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140801124401.GA3582@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:44:02AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 04:12:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > We need to treat both inodes identically from a page cache point of
> > view when prepareing them for extent swapping. We don't do this
> > right now - we assume that one of the inodes empty, because that's
> > what xfs_fsr currently does. Remove this assumption from the code.
> > 
> > While factoring out the flushing and related checks, move the
> > transactions reservation to immeidately after the flushes so that we
> > don't need to pick up and then drop the ilock to do the transaction
> > reservation. There are no issues with aborting the transaction it if
> > the checks fail before we join the inodes to the transaction and
> > dirty them, so this is a safe change to make.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> Both of these looked fine to me, but I couldn't apply this one to
> for-next or master...

It's actually in my working branch, which means it's based on
3.16-rc5 + random-outside-xfs-patches + for-next + verifier fixes +
sb discombobulation and then this patch set. I didn't check that it
applied directly against for-next - do you want me to rebase and
resend it?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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