> > Since Jeff's patch is minimal, I think that it should be the fix applied > > first and proposed for stable (with adaptations for non-volatile overlay). > > Does stable fix has to be same as mainline fix. IOW, I think atleast in > mainline we should first fix it the right way and then think how to fix > it for stable. If fixes taken in mainline are not realistic for stable, > can we push a different small fix just for stable? We can do a lot of things. But if we are able to create a series with minimal (and most critical) fixes followed by other fixes, it would be easier for everyone involved. > > IOW, because we have to push a fix in stable, should not determine > what should be problem solution for mainline, IMHO. > I find in this case there is a correlation between the simplest fix and the most relevant fix for stable. > The porblem I have with Jeff's fix is that its only works for volatile > mounts. While I prefer a solution where syncfs() is fixed both for > volatile as well as non-volatile mount and then there is less confusion. > I proposed a variation on Jeff's patch that covers both cases. Sargun is going to work on it. Thanks, Amir.
