xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3)

To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:13:26 -0400
In-reply-to: <20081029032601.GF4985@disturbed>
References: <20081028144715.683011000@suse.de> <20081028153953.GB3082@wotan.suse.de> <20081028222746.GB4985@disturbed> <20081029001653.GF15599@wotan.suse.de> <20081029031645.GE4985@disturbed> <20081029032601.GF4985@disturbed>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:26:01PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Ok, I was right - these problems happen all the time. The above call
> should really call xfs_flush_pages() to do the flush and wait. I
> note that xfs_flush_pages() returns negative errors, and all the
> callers expect positive errors. I bet the same occurs for
> xfs_flushinval_pages() and xfs_tosspages() which are the wrappers
> that core XFS code is supposed to be using for flushing and
> invalidating file ranges....
> 
> I'll write up a patch that covers all of these.

Can you also merge xfs_fsync into xfs_file_fsync while you're at it?
The split newer made any sense as xfs_fsync is as Linux-specific as it
gets and shouldn't be in the pseudo OS-independent layer.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>