Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> writes: > 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. I'm not sure the detail of your idea of ->sync_fs. "always perform" is not the goal of it, right? Anyway, we should consider about unnecessary write reduces the lifetime of flash base device. And what races of s_dirt? ("always perform" fixed those? and why we gave up to fix the real problems or root-casue?) Maybe, I already noticed one of those, but I may not be noticing all of those. If you can explain the detail of those known problems, I appreciate and would be useful. And write_super() of FAT doesn't affect to fs consistency, it's one of reasons why I moved it to write_super(). Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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