On Tue 27-03-12 16:29:58, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 11:33 +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > Then we have ext4_mark_super_dirty() call from 4 places - I forgot about > > these originally... I kind of miss their purpose. Originally they were used > > so that we write total number of free blocks and inodes in the superblock > > but when we do not maintain them in the journal mode I don't see a reason > > to periodically sync them in no-journal mode. Ted, what is the purpose of > > these calls? > > I do not understand what's the fundamental difference between journal > and non-journal mode. Why when we do have the journal we do not mark the > super-block as dirty in many places (e.g., in 'ext4_file_open()' - if we > do have the journal, when do we make sure we save the mount point path > change?). We write it at least during ext4_put_super(). > May be it has something to do with behaving like the ext2 driver when > mounting ext2-formatted media with the the ext4 driver? I'm not really sure about this... > Jan, since Ted did not answer, may be you can figure out the reasons > from this commit message, which actually introduced the > 'ext4_mark_super_dirty()' function? Anyway, attached are two patches which you can include in your series and which should make your cleanups simpler. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR