From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170] helo=longford.lazybastard.org) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1IIpbT-0001pE-KS for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:45:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 19:41:39 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: [Patch 05/18] fs/logfs/dir.c Message-ID: <20070808174137.GW15319@lazybastard.org> References: <20070808161234.GB15319@lazybastard.org> <20070808161626.GG15319@lazybastard.org> <1186592854.19606.49.camel@sauron> <20070808171554.GV15319@lazybastard.org> <1186594474.19606.52.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1186594474.19606.52.camel@sauron> Cc: akpm@osdl.org, Arnd Bergmann , =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , David Woodhouse List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 8 August 2007 20:34:34 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 19:15 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > > On Wed, 8 August 2007 20:07:34 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 18:16 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > > +static inline void logfs_inc_count(struct inode *inode) > > > > +{ > > > > + inode->i_nlink++; > > > > + mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static inline void logfs_dec_count(struct inode *inode) > > > > +{ > > > > + inode->i_nlink--; > > > > + mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode); > > > > +} > > > include/linux/fs.h: inode_inc_link_count() inode_dec_link_count() do > > > this. Although not sure they exist in the old kernel your patches are > > > against. > > > > Almost, they call mark_inode_dirty() instead of mark_inode_dirty_sync(). > > I wonder if that's necessary. > > > Ah, right, it is necessary as long as you do not have write-back > implemented, sure. Pardon :-) Write-back has nothing to do with this. When calling logfs_inc_count() the only thing that needs writeback is the inode itself. Marking pages and buffers dirty as well is pure paranoia or laziness, your pick. Jörn -- When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller