On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:14 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 05:54:47PM -0700, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> > fs/jbd2/commit.c | 42 ++
> > fs/jbd2/journal.c | 119 +++-
>
> Why are these changes here instead of the previous commit (jbd2: add
> fast commit machinery)?
Makes sense, Ill move these functions to the previous commit.
>
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> > index ba35ecb18616..dadd9994e74b 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> > @@ -202,6 +202,47 @@ static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space *mapping,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +/* Send all the data buffers related to an inode */
> > +int jbd2_submit_inode_data(journal_t *journal, struct jbd2_inode *jinode)
> > +{
> > + struct address_space *mapping;
> > + loff_t dirty_start;
> > + loff_t dirty_end;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (!jinode)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + dirty_start = jinode->i_dirty_start;
> > + dirty_end = jinode->i_dirty_end;
> > +
> > + if (!(jinode->i_flags & JI_WRITE_DATA))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + dirty_start = jinode->i_dirty_start;
> > + dirty_end = jinode->i_dirty_end;
>
> Why is dirty_start and dirty_end initialized twice?
Thanks for catching this. I'll fix this in V10.
>
> Also, this is going to conflcit with Mauricio's data=journal patches,
> which you'll notice when you rebase these patches on the current dev branch.
Thanks for the heads up.
- Harshad
>
> (The dev branch temporarily had your v9 patches merged in, so we could
> get the test bots to comment on your changes, but I've since pulled
> the fc patches back out.)
>
> - Ted
