On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 01:30:47PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > 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 like that solution; it might be one of the easier ways to maintain > backwards compatibility. Especially since (correct me if I am wrong) > the simpler file systems which always write out the inode in the case > of a non-blocking write_inode, say, like say the fat file system, are > immune from this specific problem, right? Yes. Also one of the patches in Nick's series actually implements this already. Looks like we lost that fact when arguing about other things.. -- 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
