Commit Graph

57 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Jiro SEKIBA
1749147276 nilfs2: delete redundant mark_inode_dirty
delete redundant mark_inode_dirty() calls

Signed-off-by: Jiro SEKIBA <jir@unicus.jp>
Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>
2009-11-27 20:05:15 +09:00
Jiro SEKIBA
565de406e7 nilfs2: expand inode_inc_link_count and inode_dec_link_count
This is an intermidiate patch to reduce redandunt mark_inode_dirty() calls
by calling inode_inc_link_count() and inode_dec_link_count() functions.

Signed-off-by: Jiro SEKIBA <jir@unicus.jp>
Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>
2009-11-27 20:05:15 +09:00
Jiro SEKIBA
43f8bc262f nilfs2: delete mark_inode_dirty from nilfs_set_link
Delete mark_inode_dirty() from nilfs_set_link() to reduce redundant
mark_inode_dirty() calls in caller of nilfs_set_link().

Signed-off-by: Jiro SEKIBA <jir@unicus.jp>
Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>
2009-11-27 20:05:15 +09:00
Jiro SEKIBA
9ca941d4b6 nilfs2: delete mark_inode_dirty in nilfs_new_inode
It is redundant to call mark_inode_dirty() in nilfs_new_inode() because
all caller of nilfs_new_inode() will call mark_inode_dirty()
after calling nilfs_new_inode() directly or indirectly in transaction.

Signed-off-by: Jiro SEKIBA <jir@unicus.jp>
Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>
2009-11-27 20:05:15 +09:00
Alexey Dobriyan
6e1d5dcc2b const: mark remaining inode_operations as const
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-09-22 07:17:24 -07:00
Ryusuke Konishi
47420c7998 nilfs2: avoid double error caused by nilfs_transaction_end
Pekka Enberg pointed out that double error handlings found after
nilfs_transaction_end() can be avoided by separating abort operation:

 OK, I don't understand this. The only way nilfs_transaction_end() can
 fail is if we have NILFS_TI_SYNC set and we fail to construct the
 segment. But why do we want to construct a segment if we don't commit?

 I guess what I'm asking is why don't we have a separate
 nilfs_transaction_abort() function that can't fail for the erroneous
 case to avoid this double error value tracking thing?

This does the separation and renames nilfs_transaction_end() to
nilfs_transaction_commit() for clarification.

Since, some calls of these functions were used just for exclusion control
against the segment constructor, they are replaced with semaphore
operations.

Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-04-07 08:31:17 -07:00
Ryusuke Konishi
d25006523d nilfs2: pathname operations
This adds pathname operations, most of which comes from the ext2 file
system.

Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-04-07 08:31:15 -07:00