Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. > > Ted/Jan/Eric, > > I just wanted to followup on this to see what the plan is. Items 1 > and 2 haven't occurred in any of the ext4.git branches that I can see. > I could be missing something but it seems this may have slipped > through the ext[34] cracks? Hm, I agree. Jan, do you want to re-send it in its own message rather than buried in the other thread? I don't know how we technically handle a "revert" upstream, to be honest. -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
