On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:38:46 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 01:10:16PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > > Don't we already have this bit since Linux 2.4.0-test12? I_DIRTY_SYNC > > is admittedly not well-named for "smudged". But it used to mean just > > that. I_DIRTY_DATASYNC was the real dirty bit. Which, in I_DIRTY_PAGES, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That should have been "2.4.0-prerelease". > > has been split into I_DIRTY_DATASYNC and I_DIRTY_PAGES. > > > > Now we just have to use sane names. > > We're currently forcing a new commit if I_DIRTY_SYNC or > I_DIRTY_DATASYNC (but not necessarily I_DIRTY_PAGES) is set. If > I_DIRTY_SYNC really means "smudged" (I believe you but I'll want to go > through the code and prove it to myself :-), Proving it to yourself is good advice indeed. I'm sure it used to mean "smudged" in 2.4.0 time. Whether any changes since have damaged that property I haven't checked. > then this might be a very > easy fix. We'll need to make sure that unmount time we do actually > force out all inodes even if only I_DIRTY_SYNC is set. > > (And then, we should rename things to more sane names. :-) Jörn -- Joern's library part 11: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html -- 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