On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:17:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > This will do a transaction on the inode, clean or dirty. That's an > awful lot of overhead for the few inodes (out of perhaps millions in > memory) that actually need it. with the ->dirty_inode callback from > the VFS, we know the only inodes that need logging are those with > i_update_core set.... Ooops, I messed that up when forwarding the RFC patch I sent to Paul & Sean, and that I had been testing with most of the time. The original one moved the i_update_core check into xfs_log_inode and that is how it should be done. I'll resend it. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
