From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l9FBvpWs029081 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:57:54 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:57:45 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: XFS regression? Message-ID: <20071015115745.GK995458@sgi.com> References: <20071010152742.1b2a7bce@zeus.pccl.info> <20071011010139.GT995458@sgi.com> <20071011151512.69f19419@zeus.pccl.info> <20071011215352.GX995458@sgi.com> <20071012002613.GL23367404@sgi.com> <20071012123601.291fee8a@zeus.pccl.info> <20071014230949.GO23367404@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Bhagi rathi Cc: David Chinner , Andrew Clayton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:28:34PM +0530, Bhagi rathi wrote: > Thanks Dave for the response. Thinking futher, why is that xfs_iunpin has > to mark the inode dirty? Because the inode has been modified, and instead of sprinkling mark_inode_dirty_sync() all over the code, we can do it in a single spot that catches all inode modifications. We don't have to think about it by doing this - inodes in transactions get marked dirty for free.... > All transactions generally modify one time or other, xfs_ichgtime takes care > of marking inode as > dirty. Sure, but there's plenty of other transactions that don't have such a convenient hook. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group