On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:18:08AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Actually now I look at your updated patch, perhaps it is not. What > version does that patch apply against? Do you have a tree or tarball > uploaded anywhere? Or can you repost the full series? It applies instead of the previous patch in that series, that is after the 9 patches before it. I don't think hfsplus has issue you mentioned in that other thread, not by design but more by accident due to: - not checking the dirty bits anymore as it doesn't implement the fdatasync optimization. - hfsplus_write_inode first calling hfsplus_ext_write_extent before setting the catalog dirty bit, with hfsplus_ext_write_extent always locking and unlocking a mutex and thus providing the required memory barrier. -- 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
