On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:55 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > 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. Sadly it has broadly meant different things to different people ;) You're right, block_write_full_page is broken. -chris -- 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
