On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:38:46 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 01:10:16PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > Don't we already have this bit since Linux 2.4.0-test12? I_DIRTY_SYNC
> > is admittedly not well-named for "smudged". But it used to mean just
> > that. I_DIRTY_DATASYNC was the real dirty bit. Which, in I_DIRTY_PAGES,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That should have been "2.4.0-prerelease".
> > has been split into I_DIRTY_DATASYNC and I_DIRTY_PAGES.
> >
> > Now we just have to use sane names.
>
> We're currently forcing a new commit if I_DIRTY_SYNC or
> I_DIRTY_DATASYNC (but not necessarily I_DIRTY_PAGES) is set. If
> I_DIRTY_SYNC really means "smudged" (I believe you but I'll want to go
> through the code and prove it to myself :-),
Proving it to yourself is good advice indeed. I'm sure it used to mean
"smudged" in 2.4.0 time. Whether any changes since have damaged that
property I haven't checked.
> then this might be a very
> easy fix. We'll need to make sure that unmount time we do actually
> force out all inodes even if only I_DIRTY_SYNC is set.
>
> (And then, we should rename things to more sane names. :-)
Jörn
--
Joern's library part 11:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
