linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 5/7] xfs: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:50:30 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, jack@...e.cz, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] xfs: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests

Hi, Dave,

Thanks for the review!

> or better still, factor xfs_file_fsync() so that it calls a helper
> that doesn't wait for data IO completion, and call that helper here
> too. The semantics of fsync/fdatasync are too complex to have to
> implement and maintain in multiple locations....

I definitely agree with consolidating things.  However, there are four
blocking calls in xfs_file_fsync (filemap_write_and_wait_range,
xfs_blkdev_issue_flush, _xfs_log_force_lsn, and another call to
xfs_blkdev_issue_flush).  How would you propose to make that
non-blocking given that those steps have to happen in sequence?

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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