[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090501134804.GC7681@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:48:04 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: Use separate super_operations structure for
no_journal filesystems
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:04:22AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 12:37:17AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > By using a separate super_operations structure for filesystems that
> > have and don't have journals, we can simply ext4_write_super() ---
> > which is only needed when no journal is present --- and ext4_freeze(),
> > ext4_unfreeze(), and ext4_sync_fs(), which are only needed when the
> > journal is present.
>
> FYI: I will make ->sync_fs mandatory pretty soon. At that point
> ->write_super will only be left for d_dirt-induced periodic writeback.
> (Still have to figure out what to do about file_fsync, but that won't
> affect ext4)
So I'm guessing your plans are to have sys_sync() no longer call
write_super(), but to only call sync_fs()? If that's the case, I
think all we need to do is set ext4_nojournal_sops.sync_fs to be
ext4_commit_super.
I assume the idea is so that the filesystem can distinguish between
periodic s_dirt writeback versus a request to write the superblock
caused by an explicit fsync or sync system call?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists