Hi Eric, > Jan Kara wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm sorry I'm replying late but I got time to react to this only now... > > > > >> I tried this and it too fixes the problem. FWIW I agree it > >> looks better... > > Well, shouldn't we rather fix what journal_start_commit() returns? > > The interface which returns 1 when a transaction is already committing or > > a transaction commit has just been started but 0 when we race with > > somebody staring the commit is fairly unusable. Moreover > > ext3_force_commit() will unnecessarily create new sync transaction and > > commit it if there's no transaction running which is quite expensive > > (even merging empty sync handle is not for free because of sync > > transaction batching). But this is minor problem since we probably > > don't care too much about sync() performance - BTW this is probably a > > cause for bug 12224, isn't it? > > Yep, it is! :) > > > BTW: ocfs2 would need fixing as well if done your way since it's > > sync_fs function has been copied over from ext3. > > To summarized I'd rather see a patch like below (untested) going in > > and your patch reverted... Opinions? I can cookup a JBD2 version of > > the patch in case we agree to go this way. > > Thanks, I'll look that over. Any chance you've looked over that patch? Thanks. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SuSE CR Labs -- 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
