On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > I've only ported the patches so far, without changing anything > significant other than the comit descriptions. One thing that has > stood out as I've done this is that the ordering of the patches is > not ideal, and some things (like the inode counters) are modified > multiple times through the patch set. I'm quite happy to > reorder/rework the series to fix these problems if that is desired. There's two obvious ordering issues: first the inode counters that you mentioned. I think this is esialy fixed by simply dropping both batches messing with it - we should have the new locks protecting it in places once inode_lock is dropped. The other one is the clean up inode reference counting patch, which sounds like it should be earlier in the series so that we have the helpers in place before touching all places that opencode an inode reference count increment. Thanks forpicking up the work on this while Nick is travelling and some more comments on the individual patches will follow. -- 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
