On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:44:02AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 04:12:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > We need to treat both inodes identically from a page cache point of > > view when prepareing them for extent swapping. We don't do this > > right now - we assume that one of the inodes empty, because that's > > what xfs_fsr currently does. Remove this assumption from the code. > > > > While factoring out the flushing and related checks, move the > > transactions reservation to immeidately after the flushes so that we > > don't need to pick up and then drop the ilock to do the transaction > > reservation. There are no issues with aborting the transaction it if > > the checks fail before we join the inodes to the transaction and > > dirty them, so this is a safe change to make. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Both of these looked fine to me, but I couldn't apply this one to > for-next or master... It's actually in my working branch, which means it's based on 3.16-rc5 + random-outside-xfs-patches + for-next + verifier fixes + sb discombobulation and then this patch set. I didn't check that it applied directly against for-next - do you want me to rebase and resend it? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
