On Mon, Sep 14 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Yes, I thought about doing that and like that better than the warning. Just pass in the needed args and allocate+fill the wbc on stack. I'll make that change. -- Jens Axboe -- 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
