On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 15:55:56 +0200, Andreas Rohner wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c b/fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c
> index 422fb54..5a530f3 100644
> --- a/fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c
> @@ -1022,11 +1022,9 @@ static int nilfs_ioctl_sync(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
> return ret;
>
> nilfs = inode->i_sb->s_fs_info;
> - if (nilfs_test_opt(nilfs, BARRIER)) {
> - ret = blkdev_issue_flush(inode->i_sb->s_bdev, GFP_KERNEL, NULL);
> - if (ret == -EIO)
> - return ret;
> - }
> + ret = nilfs_flush_device(nilfs);
> + if (ret == -EIO)
> + return ret;
One more comment. I think this special treatment of EIO should be
encapsulated in nilfs_flush_device(). nilfs_ioctl_sync() doesn't have
to know it:
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
Regards,
Ryusuke Konishi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
