On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 06:21 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:15:45PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > int nfs_wb_nocommit(struct inode *inode)
> > {
> > - return nfs_write_mapping(inode->i_mapping, FLUSH_NOCOMMIT);
> > + return filemap_write_and_wait(inode->i_mapping);
>
> Any point in keeping this as a wrapper for a single well-documented
> caller? Also taking i_mutex around it seems a bit questionable these
> days given that filemap_write_and_wait avoids lifelocks with writing
> applications okay and we use it without i_mutex all over the place.
>
Agreed, but just out of curiosity. Is there any reason why we shouldn't
use filemap_flush() + filemap_fdatawait() here instead? We're not really
interested in doing a full data integrity flush, but just want to make
sure that pages which were dirtied before the stat() syscall are flushed
to disk so that the server updates the c/mtime for us.
Cheers
Trond
--
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
