Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 10:58 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
> Trond or Bruce, can you please review these patch series and ack if you
> agrees? Thanks.
> 
> As to performance concerns that raise before the inode version counter
> (at least for ext4) is done inside ext4_mark_inode_dirty), so there is
> no extra IO work to store this counter to disk.

Hi Mingming,

It looks OK to me, but you might want to strip out the now redundant
i_version updates in add_dirent_to_buf(), ext4_rmdir(), ext4_rename().

I also have some questions about how this will affect the readdir code:
unless I missed something, the filp->f_version is still unsigned long,
so the comparisons and assignments in ext4_readdir()/ext4_dx_readdir()
no longer make sense.

Cheers
  Trond

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux