On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:44:26 -0800
Arthur Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Eric, This patch fixes the problem for me, and
> seems to put the buffers on the dirty list at the
> place where they are put on the list during the working
> case. Despite having rooted around in the innards of
> ext3 for the last few days, I cannot say that I have
> any sense of whether this patch will cause problems
> elsewhere or even if this is the best place to
> intercede.
>
> I post the complete patch not because I think it
> should be committed as is, but rather to try
> to explain the logic that brought it about. At the
> very least, this should be reviewed by the experts
> here to make sure there is no collateral damage.
>
> Arthur
>
> -------------------
> In ext3_sync_fs, we only wait for a commit to
> finish if we started it, but there may be one
> already in progress which will not be synced.
argh.
> --- a/fs/ext3/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext3/super.c
> @@ -2392,7 +2392,13 @@ static int ext3_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> if (journal_start_commit(EXT3_SB(sb)->s_journal, &target)) {
> if (wait)
> log_wait_commit(EXT3_SB(sb)->s_journal, target);
> - }
> + } else if (wait)
> + /*
> + * We may have a commit in progress, clear it out
> + * before we go on...
> + */
> + ext3_force_commit(sb);
> +
> return 0;
> }
Can we do
sb->s_dirt = 0;
if (wait)
ext3_force_commit(...);
else
journal_start_commit(...);
?
Also, I wonder if that `sb->s_dirt = 0' is correct if
journal_start_commit() didn't start a commit?
--
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
