[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080226170214.GA23829@lazybastard.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:02:14 +0100
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync()
On Tue, 26 February 2008 15:28:10 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> > One interesting aspect of this comes with COW filesystems like btrfs or
> > logfs. Writing out data pages is not sufficient, because those will get
> > lost unless their referencing metadata is written as well. So either we
> > have to call fsync for those filesystems or add another callback and let
> > filesystems override the default implementation.
>
> Doesn't the ->fsync callback get called in the sys_fdatasync() case,
> with appropriate arguments?
My paragraph above was aimed at the sync_file_range() case. fsync and
fdatasync do the right thing within the limitations you brought up in
this thread. sync_file_range() without further changes will only write
data pages, not the metadata required to actually access those data
pages. This works just fine for non-COW filesystems, which covers all
currently merged ones.
With COW filesystems it is currently impossible to do sync_file_range()
properly. The problem is orthogonal to your's, I just brought it up
since you were already mentioning sync_file_range().
Jörn
--
Joern's library part 10:
http://blogs.msdn.com/David_Gristwood/archive/2004/06/24/164849.aspx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists