Re: [Patch] ext3_journal_stop inode access

["Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>]

Hi,On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 00:12, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > Well, there's still the
> > 	if (err)
> > 		__ext3_std_error(inode->i_sb, where, err);
> > case in ext3_journal_stop() to worry about
> 
> We already have that.

Only if we fix the underlying problem --- I was only pointing out that
even if we drop the setting of s_dirt entirely, which was what we were
trying to fix, we can't avoid having to find the sb.

> But I'm not particularly fussed either way - it will only be 100-200 bytes of
> code saved.

Yep, but there are probably other places we can find where we can avoid
passing the sb around too if we have the back-pointer. I guess it makes
sense to go ahead with that.

> The journal and the superblock have a definite one-to-one relationship - I think the
> backpointer makes sense.  But whatever - I'll let you flip that coin.

OK, go for it and I'll merge for 2.4.

Cheers,
 Stephen