On Wednesday 08 October 2008 00:36, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:29:11AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > That's true, but there is a lot of code duplication, which means that > > bugs or changes in write_cache_pages() would need to be fixed in > > ext4_write_cache_pages(). So another approach that might be better > > from a long-term code maintenance point of view is to add a flag in > > struct writeback_control that tells write_cache_pages() not to update > > those fields, and avoid duplicating approximately 95 lines of code. > > It means a change in a core mm function, though, so if folks thinks > > its too ugly, we can make our own copy in fs/ext4. Heh, funny you should mention that. I was looking at it just the other day. It's riddled with bugs (some of which supposedly are by-design circumventing of data integrity). http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2008-10/msg00917.html I'm also looking (in the same thread) at doing a patch to improve fsync performance and ensure it doesn't get stuck behind concurrent dirtiers by adding another tag to the radix-tree. Mikulas is also looking at improving that problem with another method. It would be nice if fsdevel gurus would participate (I'll send out my patchset when I get it working, and recap the situation and competing ideas). -- 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
