From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com ([192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m7I0IIIj006138 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:18:18 -0700 Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 332CA19F41B7 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id PgxMy6dpWYeaHkXZ for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:19:35 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] XFS: Never call mark_inode_dirty_sync() directly Message-ID: <20080818001935.GF19760@disturbed> References: <1218698083-11226-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1218698083-11226-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20080814194702.GB12237@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080814194702.GB12237@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 03:47:02PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:14:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Once the Linux inode and the XFS inode are combined, we cannot rely > > on just check if the linux inode exists as a method of determining > > if it is valid or not. Hence we should always call > > xfs_mark_inode_dirty_sync() instead as it does the correct checks to > > determine if the liinux inode is in a valid state or not. > > Makes sense, and another candidate to put at the beginning of the series > or rather just put in now. Ok. I'll reorder it... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com