On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:39 PM, David Sterba <dste...@suse.cz> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:47:54PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
To David:
I'm a little curious about why inode_cache needs to be delayed to
next
transaction.
In btrfs_remount() we have s_umount mutex, and we synced the whole
filesystem already,
so there should be no running transaction and we can just set any
mount
option into fs_info.
See our discussion under the noinode_cache option:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%2540vger.kernel.org/msg30075.html&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=6%2FL0lzzDhu0Y1hL9xm%2BQyA%3D%3D%0A&m=sv%2BL93W9i7vNsbS3ozpylY3o%2F3wpA4TZTQTtFh3mUXg%3D%0A&s=2d678af317413a7452f047aa9ed07bc7e5424d4bae831ac15fae5f23a2acd080
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%2540vger.kernel.org/msg30414.html&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=6%2FL0lzzDhu0Y1hL9xm%2BQyA%3D%3D%0A&m=sv%2BL93W9i7vNsbS3ozpylY3o%2F3wpA4TZTQTtFh3mUXg%3D%0A&s=2fab711b3d70ab27c008694249bc62596f37e41af84dfc21077629930b4fe854
What do you think about reverting the whole patchset and rework the
sysfs interface?
IMO reverting should be the last option, we have a minimal fix to the
sync deadlock and you've proposed the per-trasaction mount options to
replace the pending inode_change.
I agree, I'd rather build on top of what we have than use reverts at
this point.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
