On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 09:24:19PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Yeah, I knew it wasn't ;) I did resend > [PATCH] ext4: fix unjournaled inode bitmap modification > which is a bit more involved. Yeah, sorry, I didn't see your updated patch at first, since this mail thread is one complicated tangle. :-( > That'll get_write_access on the same buffer over and over, I suppose > it's ok, but the patch I sent tries to minimize that, and call > ext4_handle_release_buffer if we're not going to use it (which is > a no-op today anyway and not normally used I guess...) Well, it's really rare that we will go through that loop more than once; it only happens if we have multiple processes race against each other trying to grab the same inode. > If ext4_handle_release_buffer() is dead code now, and repeated calls > via repeat_in_this_group: are no big deal, then your version looks fine. Yeah, I think it's pretty much dead code. At least, I can't think of a good reason why we would want to actually try to handle ext4_handle_release_buffer() to claw back the transaciton credit. And if we do, we'll have to do a sweep through the entire ext4 codebase anyway. - Ted -- 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
