On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> The following patch fixes the problem for me:
Good catch, can you send it with a proper signoff and description?
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c
> index cca00f4..2e23e3d 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c
> @@ -881,11 +881,14 @@ xfs_file_aio_write(
> /* Handle various SYNC-type writes */
> if ((file->f_flags & O_DSYNC) || IS_SYNC(inode)) {
> loff_t end = pos + ret - 1;
> + int error;
>
> xfs_rw_iunlock(ip, iolock);
> - ret = -xfs_file_fsync(file, pos, end,
> + error = -xfs_file_fsync(file, pos, end,
> (file->f_flags & __O_SYNC) ? 0 : 1);
In addition xfs_file_fsync actually returns a normal negative error,
but that bug already existed before the fsync prototype change. If you
resend the patch, can you fix it as well?
> xfs_rw_ilock(ip, iolock);
> + if (error)
> + ret = error;
> }
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
