On Tue 13-01-09 23:24:02, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 04:14:11PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > This looks sane to me, and it does fix the below testcase. > > > > Care to formally propose it? > > Can we confirm what is being proposed? From following this thread, I > think what folks are suggesting is: > > 1) Revert the current "ext3/4: wait on all pending ocmmits in ext3/4_sync_fs" Yes. > 2) Apply Jan's patch "jbd[2]: Fix return value of journal_start_commit()" Yes. > 3) Also apply Jan's patch "jbd2: Skip commit of a transaction without > any buffers" since it appears to be a good optimization (although it's > not clear it would happen once we revert (1), above. Yes, it's an optimization but I'm still a bit afraid about something relying on jbd2_journal_force_commit() implying a barrier which would not always be a case after this patch... So we should probably audit all users of ext4_force_commit() and check that this change is fine with them. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
