On Wed 16-09-09 15:21:08, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16 2009, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 15-09-09 20:16:56, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > We cannot safely ensure that the inodes are all gone at this point > > > in time, and we must not destroy this bdi with inodes having off it. > > ^^^ hanging > > > > > So just splice our entries to the default bdi since that one will > > > always persist. > > BTW: Why can't we make sure all inodes on the BDI are clean when we > > destroy it? Common sence would suggest that we better should be able to do > > it :). > > Maybe it's because most users of private BDI do not call bdi_unregister > > but rather directly bdi_destroy? Is this correct behavior? > Not sure yet, it's on the TODO. This basically works around the problem > for now at least. With dm at least, I'm seeing inodes still hanging off > the bdi after we have done a sync_blockdev(bdev, 1);. Do you really mean sync_blockdev() or fsync_bdev()? Because the first one just synces the blockdev's mapping not the filesystem... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
