On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 02:55:03PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > xlog_write_single is always entered first by xlog_write, so we also > get here for something that later gets handled by xlog_write_partial. > Which means it could be way bigger than the current iclog, and I see no > reason why that iclog would have to be XLOG_STATE_WANT_SYNC. Actually I'll take that back. There is a second call to xlog_state_switch_iclogs which we should hit and thus have moved to XLOG_STATE_WANT_SYNC.
