On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 18:05 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 08:41:05AM -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote: > > I needed to doublecheck before answering but I think I've covered that > > angle. Specifically, in ext4_write_inode the patch only calls > > ext4_do_update_inode() if s_journal is NULL, otherwise it takes the > > current path. > > > > So I think your concern is covered by the current patch. Can you take > > another look and let me know if you agree? Thanks. > > It wasn't obvious from reading the diff, but after I applied the patch > and looked more closely, you're right. I'm still worried though that > the code is a bit fragile. At the very *least* the restriction that > ext4_do_update_inode's do_sync flag should only be called when there > is no journal needs to be explicitly documented. Possibly we should > have a BUG() check to enforce this restriction; although a comment > before ext4_do_update_inode() is probably enough. I agree that the code as-is is a bit fragile. Commentary is good but it would probably be better to enforce the journal/no journal distinction in ext4_do_update_inode() itself. -- Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@xxxxxxxxxx> Google, Inc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
