On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > hpfs - no problems, but there is something rather odd. Why on the
> > Earth does it forcibly write inode to disk in the end of notify_change()?
> > Immediately before that inode is dirtified by inode_setattr(). Mikulas, is
> > there something special that makes you write it ASAP?
>
> HPFS doesn't use write_inode. On HPFS, write_inode needs to lock parent
> directory to update dirent. write_inode is called asynchronously and
> locking directory makes deadlocks. So, write_inode is NULL and inode is
> explicitly written on notify_change and file_release.
I see. OK, will it hurt if would do hpfs_truncate() prior to the call of
hpfs_file_write()?
> [ Once you suggested a solution for this - keep in inode pointer to
> directory data, but I'm too lazy to implement it. HPFS is not performance
> critical ]
I can toss the code for that in - preserving the current behaviour, but
allowing to get rid of locking. Would you mind such a variant? It's not
like the thing was going to take a lot of time - straightforward copy of
FAT version would go.
