linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in writeback_inodes_sb

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20110722151604.GD30317@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:16:04 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in
 writeback_inodes_sb_nr

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:35:23PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > You're also skipping the ->sync_fs and quotasync calls the first round.
>   Well, kind of. Since writeback is running asynchronously, we have no way
> to call ->sync_fs(sb, 0) just after async inode writeback is done (and it
> doesn't really make sense to call it before that moment). So we call
> synchronous inode writeback first and only then ->sync_fs().

I don't nessecarily say it's a bad thing, but when you do subtile
behaviour changes like this it at least needs to be clearly documented
in the changelog, or even better split into a patch on it's own.

>   Where would you like to document the change?

commit log.

--
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/