Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hi, Dave, >> >> Thanks for the review! >> >>> or better still, factor xfs_file_fsync() so that it calls a helper >>> that doesn't wait for data IO completion, and call that helper here >>> too. The semantics of fsync/fdatasync are too complex to have to >>> implement and maintain in multiple locations.... >> >> I definitely agree with consolidating things. However, there are four >> blocking calls in xfs_file_fsync (filemap_write_and_wait_range, >> xfs_blkdev_issue_flush, _xfs_log_force_lsn, and another call to >> xfs_blkdev_issue_flush). How would you propose to make that >> non-blocking given that those steps have to happen in sequence? > > OK, so re-reading your mail, I think you meant to just factor out > everything except the filemap_write_and_wait_range. Here are a couple > of patches which do that. Also, since we're not worried about blocking > in the endio processing, just making things synchronous makes the code a > lot simpler. Let me know what you think of the attached two patches > (which I've already run through xfstests). Dave, ping? Did you have a chance to take a look at these patches? Cheers, Jeff -- 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
