On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 09:24:19PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:

Yeah, I knew it wasn't ;)  I did resend 
[PATCH] ext4: fix unjournaled inode bitmap modification
which is a bit more involved.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't see your updated patch at first, since this mail
thread is one complicated tangle.  :-(

That'll get_write_access on the same buffer over and over, I suppose
it's ok, but the patch I sent tries to minimize that, and call
ext4_handle_release_buffer if we're not going to use it (which is
a no-op today anyway and not normally used I guess...)

Well, it's really rare that we will go through that loop more than
once; it only happens if we have multiple processes race against each
other trying to grab the same inode.

If ext4_handle_release_buffer() is dead code now, and repeated calls
via repeat_in_this_group: are no big deal, then your version looks fine.

Yeah, I think it's pretty much dead code.  At least, I can't think of
a good reason why we would want to actually try to handle
ext4_handle_release_buffer() to claw back the transaciton credit.  And
if we do, we'll have to do a sweep through the entire ext4 codebase
anyway.

						- Ted