On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 07:12:31AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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. xfs_trans_roll already logs the inode core, which requires the inode to be attached to the transaction. While I could see the point of moving this out of the core __xfs_trans_roll into an xfs_trans_roll_inode helper we might as well follow the current interface for now. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
