On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 08:58:01AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I think the problem here is simply that our interfaces suck. > xfs_trans_roll really needs to rejoin any inode to the new transaction > to that was joined to the previous one. Once we've fixed that we can > get rid of the silly committed arguments and everyone will be happy. xfs_trans_roll is not specifically for rolling transactions with locked inodes in them. We could use it for any object that needs multiple transactions to modify. e.g. we could roll transactions across an AGF (using hold+join) so that it remains locked across multiple allocation/free transactions. So I think pushing the inode joining inside xfs_trans_roll() is not the right thing to do, but an "inode specific wrapper" such as "xfs_trans_roll_inode()" would handle this just fine... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
