I think this one is complicated enough that is deserves a separate patch and a better description. For the other small bits: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Ok, I've also just found a problem with it(*) so I'll separate it and resend when I've fixed it. Cheers, Dave. (*) did you know we actually have a test (079) that verifies this logic? I didn't until
Hey Dave, Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> D'oh, I just reviewed this and didn't find the problem. Looking forward to your next rev to see what it is. -Ben