[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090914134207.GA14830@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:42:07 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, chris.mason@...cle.com,
hch@...radead.org, tytso@....edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
trond.myklebust@....uio.no
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] writeback: separate starting of sync vs
opportunistic writeback
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:33:07PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 14-09-09 11:36:33, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > bdi_start_writeback() is currently split into two paths, one for
> > WB_SYNC_NONE and one for WB_SYNC_ALL. Add bdi_sync_writeback()
> > for WB_SYNC_ALL writeback and let bdi_start_writeback() handle
> > only WB_SYNC_NONE.
> What I don't like about this patch is that if somebody sets up
> writeback_control with WB_SYNC_ALL mode set and then submits it to disk via
> bdi_start_writeback() it will just silently convert his writeback to an
> asynchronous one.
> So I'd maybe leave setting of sync_mode to the caller and just WARN_ON if
> it does not match the purpose of the function...
Or initialize the wb entirely inside these functions. For the sync case
we really only need a superblock as argument, and for writeback it's
bdi + nr_pages. And also make sure they consistenly return void as
no one cares about the return value.
--
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