[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252449591.15572.5.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:39:51 -0700
From: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make non-journal fsync work properly.
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 18:05 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 08:41:05AM -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> > I needed to doublecheck before answering but I think I've covered that
> > angle. Specifically, in ext4_write_inode the patch only calls
> > ext4_do_update_inode() if s_journal is NULL, otherwise it takes the
> > current path.
> >
> > So I think your concern is covered by the current patch. Can you take
> > another look and let me know if you agree? Thanks.
>
> It wasn't obvious from reading the diff, but after I applied the patch
> and looked more closely, you're right. I'm still worried though that
> the code is a bit fragile. At the very *least* the restriction that
> ext4_do_update_inode's do_sync flag should only be called when there
> is no journal needs to be explicitly documented. Possibly we should
> have a BUG() check to enforce this restriction; although a comment
> before ext4_do_update_inode() is probably enough.
I agree that the code as-is is a bit fragile. Commentary is good but it
would probably be better to enforce the journal/no journal distinction
in ext4_do_update_inode() itself.
--
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Google, Inc.
--
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