On Tue 28-05-24 12:36:02, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 27-05-24 16:48:24, Luis Henriques wrote: > > On Mon 27 May 2024 09:29:40 AM +01, Luis Henriques wrote; > > >>> + /* > > >>> + * Used to flag an inode as part of the next fast commit; will be > > >>> + * reset during fast commit clean-up > > >>> + */ > > >>> + tid_t i_fc_next; > > >>> + > > >> > > >> Do we really need new tid in the inode? I'd be kind of hoping we could use > > >> EXT4_I(inode)->i_sync_tid for this - I can see we even already set it in > > >> ext4_fc_track_template() and used for similar comparisons in fast commit > > >> code. > > > > > > Ah, true. It looks like it could be used indeed. We'll still need a flag > > > here, but a simple bool should be enough for that. > > > > After looking again at the code, I'm not 100% sure that this is actually > > doable. For example, if I replace the above by > > > > bool i_fc_next; > > > > and set to to 'true' below: Forgot to comment on this one: I don't think you even need 'bool i_fc_next' - simply whenever i_sync_tid is greater than committing transaction's tid, you move the inode to FC_Q_STAGING list in ext4_fc_cleanup(). Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
