Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] do not use s_dirt in FAT FS

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1613 bytes --]

On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 00:26 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:38:28 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > That implies that we retain ->write_super, probably in a modified form.
> > > Modified to permit the VFS to determine whether the superblock needs
> > > treatment, if ->s_dirt doesn't suffice.
> > 
> > I tried this approach and it was vetoed by Al Viro. Although it is
> > simpler to me to resurrect my old patches, I agree with Al that killing
> > '->write_super()' is a better approach.
> 
> Well, it can be done without a super_operation vector - pass the
> library code a superblock* and a function address.  But the difference
> is pointless fluff.

May be, let see how many FSes will actually can share things. Per-FS
implementation is better because you do not have to worry about
refcounting and the FS gone by the time a timer expires. Also, when you
know the FS specifics, you can make a decision about whether the timer
can be made deferrable.

Sorry, I did not understand what you meant by "the difference is
pointless fluff" - difference between what and what?

> > Also, if you look at this from the angle that only few old FSes will
> > have this, it becomes not that bad. I assume I will change this
> > patch-set and won't use delayed works here.
> 
> I don't think I understand that.  You intend to alter this patchset?

Yeah, I think I'll be able to implement one of the two ideas I described
in the previous e-mail, test, and send version two of this patch-set.

Thanks!

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]