On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:13:33AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >> > >> > ok.. I will do it as a separate patch. >> Well, patch 2/3 does not really make too much sense without it (errok >> parameter isn't used) so there's no reason to do it as a separate patch. >> Just add it to this patch please. > > Agreed; right now this whole patch series is a no-op, since errok > isn't getting used for anything. So fixing errok so it's passed to > start_this_handle() seems to be more in the category of "fix the > patch" more than anything else. > > One more thing; perhaps we should be passing in a integer so we can > pass in a flag word. That way you don't need to have a fail_ok > variant. It's a lot more obvious if you have a call: > > handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, 1, JBD2_FAIL_OK); > > What we can also do is this: > > handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, 1, JBD2_FAIL_OK | JBD2_TOPLEVEL); > > What JBD2_TOPLEVEL means is that caller is from a top-level file > system function, such as ext4_symlink() or ext4_chmod(), such that > start_this_handle() can use GFP_KERNEL instead of GFP_NOFS. GFP_NOFS > is needed for any function that might get called by the direct reclaim > path (i.e., the writepage() function). But for the top-level > symlink() or chmod() function, it's actually OK to allocate memory > using GFP_KERNEL, since there's no potential recursion problem. Hi Ted, Resending version 2 of the three patch series after updating them as you suggested above. -- Thanks - Manish -- 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
