Chris Mason wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 14:12, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > It won't. There isn't really a sane way of doing this properly unless > > we do something like: > > > > 1) Add a new flag to the superblock > > 2) Set that flag against all r/w superblocks before starting the sync > > 3) Use that flag inside the superblock walk. > > > > That would provide a reasonable solution, but I don't believe we > > need to go to those lengths in 2.4, do you? > > Grin, I'm partial to changing sync_supers to allow the FS to leave > s_dirt set in its write_super call. That doesn't sound like a simplification ;) > I see what ext3 gains from your current patch in the unmount case, but > the sync case is really unchanged because of interaction with kupdate. True. And I'd like /bin/sync to _really_ be synchronous because I use `reboot -f' all the time. Even though SuS-or-POSIX say that sync() only needs to _start_ the IO. That's rather silly. > Other filesystems trying to use the sync_fs() call might think adding > one is enough to always get called on sync, and I think that will lead > to unreliable sync implementations. OK. How about we do it that way in in 2.5 and then look at a backport? With the steps I propose above, filesystems which don't implement sync_fs would see no changes, so it should be safe. _______________________________________________ Ext3-users@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
