On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 09:35:58AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:27 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > I don't think do_sync_mapping_range is broken as is. It simply splits > the operations into different parts. The caller can request that we > wait for pending IO first. It is. Not because of it's whacky API, but because it uses WB_SYNC_NONE. > WB_SYNC_NONE none just means don't wait for IO in flight, and there are > valid uses for it that will slow down if you switch them all to > WB_SYNC_ALL. To write_cache_pages it means that, but further down the chain (eg. block_write_full_page) it also means not to wait on other stuff. It has broadly meant "don't worry about data integirty" for a long time AFAIKS. > The problem is that we have a few flags and callers that mean almost but > not quite the same thing. Some people confuse WB_SYNC_NONE with > wbc->nonblocking. > > I'd leave WB_SYNC_NONE alone and set wbc->nr_to_write to the max int, or > just make a new flag that says write every dirty page in this range. Well it wouldn't hurt to clarify things. I'd rather introduce a new WB_SYNC_WRITEBACK or something for that guy. But anyway, as I said, it's just a minimal fix. -- 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
