Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-17 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
From: Artem Bityutskiy Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:47:44 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] fs/sysv: stop using write_super and s_dirt It does not look like sysv FS needs 'write_super()' at all, because all it does is a timestamp update. I cannot test this patch, because this file-system is so old and probably

Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-17 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
From: Artem Bityutskiy artem.bityuts...@linux.intel.com Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:47:44 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] fs/sysv: stop using write_super and s_dirt It does not look like sysv FS needs 'write_super()' at all, because all it does is a timestamp update. I cannot test this patch, because this

Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-13 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 14:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The issue Alan raised around the superblock timestamp is still up in > the air. I guess he's a slow typist ;) > > My take is "no, we don't need to do that any more" - surely all Linux > systems have a functional hardware clock. But

Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-13 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:37:58 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:43 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > This patch-set makes sysv file-system stop using the VFS '->write_supers()' > > call-back and the '->s_dirt' superblock field because I plan to remove them > > once all

Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-13 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:37:58 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:43 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: This patch-set makes sysv file-system stop using the VFS '-write_supers()' call-back and the '-s_dirt' superblock field because I plan to remove them

Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-13 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 14:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: The issue Alan raised around the superblock timestamp is still up in the air. I guess he's a slow typist ;) My take is no, we don't need to do that any more - surely all Linux systems have a functional hardware clock. But the

Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-12 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 17:37 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:43 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > This patch-set makes sysv file-system stop using the VFS '->write_supers()' > > call-back and the '->s_dirt' superblock field because I plan to remove them > > once all users

Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-12 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:43 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > This patch-set makes sysv file-system stop using the VFS '->write_supers()' > call-back and the '->s_dirt' superblock field because I plan to remove them > once all users are gone. Hi Andrew, would you please pick this patch-set as

Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-12 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:43 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: This patch-set makes sysv file-system stop using the VFS '-write_supers()' call-back and the '-s_dirt' superblock field because I plan to remove them once all users are gone. Hi Andrew, would you please pick this patch-set as well? I

Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/sysv: stop using write_supers and s_dirt

2012-07-12 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 17:37 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:43 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: This patch-set makes sysv file-system stop using the VFS '-write_supers()' call-back and the '-s_dirt' superblock field because I plan to remove them once all users are