[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49r4nnujx6.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:09:41 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
tytso@....edu, david@...morbit.com, bpm@....com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ext4: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
>> Just to be clear, are you saying you would like me to remove the
>> mutex_lock/unlock pair from ext4_sync_file? (I had already factored out
>> the common code between this new code path and the fsync path in my tree.)
> Yes, after some thinking I came to that conclusion. We actually need to
> keep i_mutex around ext4_flush_unwritten_io() to avoid livelocks but the
> rest doesn't need it. The change should be definitely a separate patch just
> in case there's something subtle I missed and we need to bisect in
> future... I've attached a patch for that so that blame for bugs goes my way
> ;) Compile tested only so far. I'll give it some more testing overnight.
Great, thanks Jan! I'll include this in the next posting.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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