On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:33:07PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 14-09-09 11:36:33, Jens Axboe wrote: > > bdi_start_writeback() is currently split into two paths, one for > > WB_SYNC_NONE and one for WB_SYNC_ALL. Add bdi_sync_writeback() > > for WB_SYNC_ALL writeback and let bdi_start_writeback() handle > > only WB_SYNC_NONE. > What I don't like about this patch is that if somebody sets up > writeback_control with WB_SYNC_ALL mode set and then submits it to disk via > bdi_start_writeback() it will just silently convert his writeback to an > asynchronous one. > So I'd maybe leave setting of sync_mode to the caller and just WARN_ON if > it does not match the purpose of the function... Or initialize the wb entirely inside these functions. For the sync case we really only need a superblock as argument, and for writeback it's bdi + nr_pages. And also make sure they consistenly return void as no one cares about the return value. -- 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
