On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:27:07 +0100
Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> + if (sync) {
> + struct inode *inode, *old_inode = NULL;
> +
> + /*
> + * Data integrity sync. Must wait for all pages under writeback,
> + * because there may have been pages dirtied before our sync
> + * call, but which had writeout started before we write it out.
> + * In which case, the inode may not be on the dirty list, but
> + * we still have to wait for that writeout.
> + */
> + list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> + struct address_space *mapping;
> +
> + if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE))
> + continue;
> + mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> + if (mapping->nrpages == 0)
> + continue;
> + __iget(inode);
> + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> + /*
> + * We hold a reference to 'inode' so it couldn't have
> + * been removed from s_inodes list while we dropped the
> + * inode_lock. We cannot iput the inode now as we can
> + * be holding the last reference and we cannot iput it
> + * under inode_lock. So we keep the reference and iput
> + * it later.
> + */
hm, tricky.
Can umount run concurrently with this? What will it say about the busy
inode?
> + iput(old_inode);
> + old_inode = inode;
> +
> + filemap_fdatawait(mapping);
> +
> + cond_resched();
> +
> + spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> + iput(old_inode);
> + } else
--
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
