Hi, 2011/2/24 Josh Hunt <johunt@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Jan > > I'm not seeing the problem with your patch as was expected since we're > not messing with i_nlink anymore. Al suggested marking the inode as > dirty where we were previously doing the old_inode dec. I believe this > is needed as well since we are updating it's ctime. I've attached a > version marking the inode dirty and it also fixes the comment making > reference to calling inode_dec_link_count(). > > I'm not completely clear on the historical reasons for messing with the > link count of old_inode in the first place. It was just to simulate the > linking and unlinking of the old_inode? > > Thanks > Josh > can we share your test/benchmark? I'd like to add it to my test suite as no-regression test. Marco -- 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
