On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 08:56 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > @@ -1097,7 +1097,7 @@ xfs_fs_sync_fs(
> > * Doing anything during the async pass would be counterproductive.
> > */
> > if (!wait)
> > - return 0;
> > + goto out;
> >
> > xfs_log_force(mp, XFS_LOG_SYNC);
> > if (laptop_mode) {
> > @@ -1108,8 +1108,8 @@ xfs_fs_sync_fs(
> > */
> > flush_delayed_work(&mp->m_log->l_work);
> > }
> > -
> > - return 0;
> > +out:
> > + return __sync_blockdev(sb->s_bdev, wait);
>
> XFS never uses the block device mapping for anything, so this is
> not needed.
>
Thanks, I wasn't sure about xfs. I'll drop this hunk.
FWIW, I think pushing this call down into the sync_fs routines is still
probably the right thing to do, regardless of the state of the later
patches.
> > +/*
> > + * Many legacy filesystems don't have a sync_fs op. For them, we just flush
> > + * the block device (if there is one).
> > + */
> > +static inline int call_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> > +{
> > + if (sb->s_op->sync_fs)
> > + return sb->s_op->sync_fs(sb, wait);
> > + return __sync_blockdev(sb->s_bdev, wait);
> > +}
>
> The proper name for this would be vfs_sync_fs. And I don't think it
> warrants an inline.
I patterned the name after the call_mmap (and now-defunct call_fsync)
helpers. I'll rename it and change it to be non-inlined.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
