On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 07:57:02AM -0700, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote: > > I think we can take a look at this, but there are a lot of calls to > ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(), and it's not clear on a quick inspection > that we'd be able to determine which would need to be called with > do_sync = 1... Well, it's already the case that ext4_handle_dirty_metadata is a #define: #define ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, inode, bh) \ __ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(__func__, (handle), (inode), (bh)) So all we need to do is change it to be: #define ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, inode, bh) \ __ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(__func__, (handle), (inode), (bh), 0) #define ext4_handle_dirty_metadata_sync(handle, inode, bh) \ __ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(__func__, (handle), (inode), (bh), 1) And then add the extra function parameter to __ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(). Hey, presto! :-) > On the other hand, this would take care of a similar problem that I > was going to be sending a patch for this week: where removing an > extent block without a journal requires a sync_dirty_buffer() in order > to avoid writeback of the extent header in the block, *after* the > block is marked free in the bitmap. As I mentioned in the other message, the other thing we can do is to use bforget(); that is more efficient than using sync_dirty_buffer(), since it eliminates the write altogether. Since the file has been deleted, there's no point writing the dirty buffer out; simply using bforget() to drop the dirty buffer is all that is necessary. Regards, - Ted -- 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
