On Tue 28 May 2024 12:52:03 PM +02, Jan Kara wrote; > 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(). Yeah, I got that from your other comment in the previous email. And that means the actual fix will be a pretty small patch (almost a one-liner). I'm running some more tests on v3, I'll probably send it later today or tomorrow. Thanks a lot for your review (and patience), Jan. Cheers, -- Luís
