From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org (pentafluge.infradead.org [213.146.154.40]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l3O94TfB004786 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:04:30 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:51:47 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: review [1 of 3]: lazy superblock counters - core kernel Message-ID: <20070424085147.GA28820@infradead.org> References: <20070419231459.GX48531920@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070423220010.GA18325@infradead.org> <20070424012808.GD48531920@melbourne.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070424012808.GD48531920@melbourne.sgi.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs-dev , xfs-oss On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:28:08AM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > This is really quite nasty. Should we at least force a cache flush here? > > Ok, so the patch I sent out was an older version that had a very similar > name to the current patch in my series (xfs-lazy-sb vs xfs_lazy_sb). > This code doesn't exist in the version I should have sent out. > > The latest version, plus the changes suggested here and with the > second patch folded back into it is attached. Looks like in the new code we simply ignore log reservation failures in xfs_log_sbcount? Otherwise this looks good to me. converting all sb feature checks to use the inlines would be a nice cleanup opportunity for someone bored :)