From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p954A2HV084236 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:10:02 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: simplify xfs_trans_ijoin* again From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20110919150054.GA21382@infradead.org> References: <20110919150054.GA21382@infradead.org> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:09:57 -0500 Message-ID: <1317787797.2270.11.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 11:00 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > There is no reason to keep a reference to the inode even if we unlock > it during transaction commit because we never drop a reference between > the ijoin and commit. Also use this fact to merge xfs_trans_ijoin_ref > back into xfs_trans_ijoin - the third argument decides if an unlock > is needed now. > > I'm actually starting to wonder if allowing inodes to be unlocked > at transaction commit really is worth the effort. The only real > benefit is that they can be unlocked earlier when commiting a > synchronous transactions, but that could be solved by doing the > log force manually after the unlock, too. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Looks good. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs