Hi,
I have updated the inode version patches and below are the details:
64-bit-i_version.patch which only replaces the 32-bit i_version field in
the generic inode with a 64-bit i_version field. The VFS-level updates
of the inode version are still in the i_version_update_vfs.patch and
this patch has been moved to the bottom of the patch series.
ext4_i_version_hi_2.patch was still using ei->i_fs_version instead of
inode->i_version. I have corrected this patch.
Also there were whitespace problems in i_version_hi.patch.
I am also attaching a ext4_no_version.patch which adds a "noversion"
mount option to disable inode version updates.
I am not sure why i_version needs to be updated in VFS since it is being
updated in ext4_mark_iloc_dirty().
Well, these are lots of small patches and I am sending them separately
so that they can be applied and commented upon easily.
Thanks,
Kalpak.
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:26 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have updated the inode version patches and below are the details:
>
> 64-bit-i_version.patch which only replaces the 32-bit i_version field in
> the generic inode with a 64-bit i_version field. The VFS-level updates
> of the inode version are still in the i_version_update_vfs.patch and
> this patch has been moved to the bottom of the patch series.
>
> ext4_i_version_hi_2.patch was still using ei->i_fs_version instead of
> inode->i_version. I have corrected this patch.
>
> Also there were whitespace problems in i_version_hi.patch.
>
> I am also attaching a ext4_no_version.patch which adds a "noversion"
> mount option to disable inode version updates.
>
> I am not sure why i_version needs to be updated in VFS since it is being
> updated in ext4_mark_iloc_dirty().
>
Yes I think we can remove the inode version update in VFS patch. So I am
going to drop the patch 5/6. Jean Noel, if you disagree, please let me
know.
> Well, these are lots of small patches and I am sending them separately
> so that they can be applied and commented upon easily.
>
Thanks, I will update the patch queue with your patch series.
Mingming
> Thanks,
> Kalpak.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Mingming Cao a ?crit :
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:26 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have updated the inode version patches and below are the details:
>>
>> 64-bit-i_version.patch which only replaces the 32-bit i_version field in
>> the generic inode with a 64-bit i_version field. The VFS-level updates
>> of the inode version are still in the i_version_update_vfs.patch and
>> this patch has been moved to the bottom of the patch series.
>>
>> ext4_i_version_hi_2.patch was still using ei->i_fs_version instead of
>> inode->i_version. I have corrected this patch.
>>
>> Also there were whitespace problems in i_version_hi.patch.
>>
>> I am also attaching a ext4_no_version.patch which adds a "noversion"
>> mount option to disable inode version updates.
>>
>> I am not sure why i_version needs to be updated in VFS since it is being
>> updated in ext4_mark_iloc_dirty().
>>
>
> Yes I think we can remove the inode version update in VFS patch. So I am
> going to drop the patch 5/6. Jean Noel, if you disagree, please let me
> know.
>
I agree, the update of the i_version in the vfs are done in
simple_rename() , simple_link() , simple_unlink() , which are mainly
used by fs/ramfs and fs/hugetlbfs. So I think if each fs can update the
i_version, that will be good.
Jean noel