From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE70B7F51 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 22:19:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B26EAC005 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 20:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id y7M9aZ5ih2T9fPgB for ; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 13:19:31 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: flush both inodes in xfs_swap_extents Message-ID: <20140802031931.GS20518@dastard> References: <1406787128-11897-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1406787128-11897-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20140801124401.GA3582@laptop.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140801124401.GA3582@laptop.bfoster> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:44:02AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 04:12:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > We need to treat both inodes identically from a page cache point of > > view when prepareing them for extent swapping. We don't do this > > right now - we assume that one of the inodes empty, because that's > > what xfs_fsr currently does. Remove this assumption from the code. > > > > While factoring out the flushing and related checks, move the > > transactions reservation to immeidately after the flushes so that we > > don't need to pick up and then drop the ilock to do the transaction > > reservation. There are no issues with aborting the transaction it if > > the checks fail before we join the inodes to the transaction and > > dirty them, so this is a safe change to make. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > > --- > > Both of these looked fine to me, but I couldn't apply this one to > for-next or master... It's actually in my working branch, which means it's based on 3.16-rc5 + random-outside-xfs-patches + for-next + verifier fixes + sb discombobulation and then this patch set. I didn't check that it applied directly against for-next - do you want me to rebase and resend it? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs