Jan Kara wrote: > 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 Sorry, kind of slipped through the cracks. I'll do that and run it through the testcase today. -Eric -- 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
