On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:25:21AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > That sounds like a problem with your fix - it should work > regardless of whether a valid/implemented AIO function is called > or not, right? There's no difference between an invalid command, > IOCB_CMD_FSYNC where ->aio_fsync() is null, or some supported > command that immediately returns -EIO, the end result should > be the same... We would need the same increased file refcount if aio_fsync actually was implemented using -EIOCBQUEUED returns. We wouldn't nessecarily need it without that. > > I'm not going to complain about a proper implementation, but right now > > we don't have any, and I'm not even sure the method signature is > > all that suitable. E.g. for the in-kernel users we'd really want a > > ranged fsync like the normal fsync anyway. > > You mean like this version I posted a year ago: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/29/517 I'd love to see that one in - but it doesn't use the aio_fsync method either.. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
