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: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg30075.html http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg30414.html > 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
