What about rename or hard link? Cheers, Andreas > On Oct 18, 2019, at 10:56, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 12:41:01AM -0700, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote: >> + >> +Multiple fast commit blocks are a part of one sub-transaction. To >> +indicate the last block in a fast commit transaction, fc_flags field >> +in the last block in every subtransaction is marked with "LAST" (0x1) >> +flag. A subtransaction is valid only if all the following conditions >> +are met: >> + >> +1) SUBTID of all blocks is either equal to or greater than SUBTID of >> + the previous fast commit block. >> +2) For every sub-transaction, last block is marked with LAST flag. >> +3) There are no invalid blocks in between. > > I'm wondering why we need to support multiple inodes being modified in > a single transaction. As we currently have defined what can be done, > all updates to an inode should be free standing and not dependent on a > change to another inode, right? And today, one block only modifies > one inode. > > The only reason why we might want to define a sub-transaction as being > composed of multiple inodes, which must all be updated in an > all-or-nothing fashion, is the swap boot inode ioctl, and if that's > the only one, I wonder if it's worth the extra complexity. > > Am I missing anything? > > - Ted
