On Tuesday 08 September 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:47:46AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > > Well, that commit seems a bit strange. It calls fat_clusters_flush() > > unconditionally without checking sb->s_dirt. However, if my guess is > > right, "sync after removed event" itself sounds like the issue in > > suspend process. > > The idea of ->sync_fs is that we always perform the sync activity, > and not just the usual background superblock writeback trigerred by > s_dirt. If FAT doesn't need that and never has races around s_dirt > you can add the check back, but I would recommend against it. > > Also when you hack around this in FAt MMC will still fail with every > other filesystem. So, what should be done in your opinion? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
