On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:36:01AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> Is XFS_PROJID_DEFAULT correct here? If we are getting a parent inode
> from ->tmpfile, then this should be handled the same way as for
> xfs_create.
It should. And while we're at it that code from create and symlink
should be factored into:
static inline projid_t xfs_initial_projid(struct xfs_inode *dp)
{
if (dp->i_d.di_flags & XFS_DIFLAG_PROJINHERIT)
return xfs_get_projid(dp);
return XFS_PROJID_DEFAULT;
}
fist.
> I don't think this is necessary here. The ENOSPC flushing in
> xfs_create() is done to ensure we have space for directory block
> creation, not so much for inode allocation. Hence it doesn't make a
> lot of sense to have this here....
Point. I take back my earlier comment that it should be factored.
> I'm not sure that XFS_MOUNT_DIRSYNC shoul dbe checked here, as there
> is no directory operations to synchronise at all...
It probably shouldn't indeed. Reminds me of my old patch to make this
a flag to xfs_trans_commit instead of all that boilerplate code..
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
