[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090330022521.GB13356@mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:25:21 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix blkdev_issue_flush() failure handling
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 12:43:22PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
> As long as we keep the call there this is probably good, but after
> talking w/ Chris Mason, I think the call is extraneous anyway and should
> probably just be removed...
>
Yes, I agree, but it takes a lot of digging to be completely sure of
that it's safe to remove it. Interestingly, it was you who added the
patch which added the call to blkdev_issue_flush():
commit d755fb384250d6bd7fd18a0930e71965acc8e72e
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Date: Fri Jul 11 19:27:31 2008 -0400
ext4: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync
To ensure that bits are truly on-disk after an fsync,
we should call blkdev_issue_flush if barriers are supported.
Inspired by an old thread on barriers, by reiserfs & xfs
which do the same, and by a patch SuSE ships with their kernel
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
When we remove it we should add a comment noting why it's not
necessary.
- Ted
--
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