Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:25 +0200
> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> implementation of the file_operations and inode_operations for
>> regular data files.
>>
>> Most file_operations are generic vfs implementations except:
>> - exofs_truncate will truncate the OSD object as well
>> - Generic file_fsync is not good for none_bd devices so open code it
>> - The default for .flush in Linux is todo nothing so call exofs_fsync
>> on the file.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> +int exofs_file_fsync(struct file *filp, struct dentry *dentry, int datasync)
>> +{
>> + int ret1, ret2;
>> + struct address_space *mapping = filp->f_mapping;
>> +
>> + ret1 = filemap_write_and_wait(mapping);
>> + ret2 = file_fsync(filp, dentry, datasync);
>> +
>> + return ret1 ? : ret2;
>
> mutter. That gccism always makes me fall over dazed and confused.
> Maybe that's just me.
>
I've seen it done and felt like you exactly, only I liked the feeling. I'll change
it.
> Did we really want to call file_fsync() if filemap_write_and_wait() failed?
>
I think it cannot hurt, other places do the same including generic code.
--
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
