On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 02:29:34AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Btw, there's an easy way how we could get this right, in fact > the write_inode in XFS is already trying to do it, it's just the > caller not copying with it: > > - if we can't get locks for a non-blocking ->write_inode we return > EAGAIN, and the callers sets the dirty bits again. I just tried to implement this and noticed we're actually doing this inside XFS - if we get our EAGAIN error from the lower level code in ->write_inode we do a manual mark_inode_dirty_sync(). So as far as XFS is concerned ->write_inode always pushes data into a state where ->sync_fs writes it out, or if it was called with WB_SYNC_NONE and couldn't get the locks redirties the inode, and thus is not affected by the issue you mentioned. I think this is also a good model for other filesystems to follow. -- 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
