On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:25:41AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 07:31:32PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > And actually I think it is much better to have sync_inode, which means > > we'll be able to get rid of commit_metadata (which should be an inode > > operation anyway, not an export operation which really should deal with > > exporting filesystems to a non-vfs namespace, not nfsd hacks). > > > > commit_metadata would just be sync_inode with a null range or no data > > sync flag set. > > As explained in the previous mail it's not just not writing data, it's > conceptually quite different from fsync. OK I missed that part about not requiring dirty metadata to be written, just currently ongoing async operations. But then I don't understand how it would be used by nfsd, how does nfsd start some async operation on the inode metadata such that ->commit_metadata would do anything useful for it? -- 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
