All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:28:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394728103.2767.32.camel@menhir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140313162319.GA504@quack.suse.cz>

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:23 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
>                                   ^^remount
> 
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs().  This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
> > 
> > However, it's possible that there might be some file systems that are
> > actually depending on this behavior.  In most file systems, it's
> > probably fine to only call sync_filesystem() when transitioning from
> > read-write to read-only, and there are some file systems where this is
> > not needed at all (for example, for a pseudo-filesystem or something
> > like romfs).
>   Hum, I'd avoid this excercise at least for filesystem where
> sync_filesystem() is obviously useless - proc, debugfs, pstore, devpts,
> also always read-only filesystems such as isofs, qnx4, qnx6, befs, cramfs,
> efs, freevxfs, romfs, squashfs. I think you can find a couple more which
> clearly don't care about sync_filesystem() if you look a bit closer.
> 
>
> 								Honza

I guess the same is true for other file systems which are mounted ro
too. So maybe a check for MS_RDONLY before doing the sync in those
cases?

Steve.




WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
	codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.org, Adrian Hunter <ad
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:28:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394728103.2767.32.camel@menhir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140313162319.GA504@quack.suse.cz>

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:23 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
>                                   ^^remount
> 
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs().  This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
> > 
> > However, it's possible that there might be some file systems that are
> > actually depending on this behavior.  In most file systems, it's
> > probably fine to only call sync_filesystem() when transitioning from
> > read-write to read-only, and there are some file systems where this is
> > not needed at all (for example, for a pseudo-filesystem or something
> > like romfs).
>   Hum, I'd avoid this excercise at least for filesystem where
> sync_filesystem() is obviously useless - proc, debugfs, pstore, devpts,
> also always read-only filesystems such as isofs, qnx4, qnx6, befs, cramfs,
> efs, freevxfs, romfs, squashfs. I think you can find a couple more which
> clearly don't care about sync_filesystem() if you look a bit closer.
> 
>
> 								Honza

I guess the same is true for other file systems which are mounted ro
too. So maybe a check for MS_RDONLY before doing the sync in those
cases?

Steve.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
	cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
	codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@thunk.org,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Phillip Lougher <phillip@squashfs.org.uk>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:28:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394728103.2767.32.camel@menhir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140313162319.GA504@quack.suse.cz>

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:23 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
>                                   ^^remount
> 
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs().  This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
> > 
> > However, it's possible that there might be some file systems that are
> > actually depending on this behavior.  In most file systems, it's
> > probably fine to only call sync_filesystem() when transitioning from
> > read-write to read-only, and there are some file systems where this is
> > not needed at all (for example, for a pseudo-filesystem or something
> > like romfs).
>   Hum, I'd avoid this excercise at least for filesystem where
> sync_filesystem() is obviously useless - proc, debugfs, pstore, devpts,
> also always read-only filesystems such as isofs, qnx4, qnx6, befs, cramfs,
> efs, freevxfs, romfs, squashfs. I think you can find a couple more which
> clearly don't care about sync_filesystem() if you look a bit closer.
> 
>
> 								Honza

I guess the same is true for other file systems which are mounted ro
too. So maybe a check for MS_RDONLY before doing the sync in those
cases?

Steve.



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
	codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.orgAdrian Hunter <ad>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:28:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394728103.2767.32.camel@menhir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140313162319.GA504@quack.suse.cz>

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:23 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
>                                   ^^remount
> 
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs().  This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
> > 
> > However, it's possible that there might be some file systems that are
> > actually depending on this behavior.  In most file systems, it's
> > probably fine to only call sync_filesystem() when transitioning from
> > read-write to read-only, and there are some file systems where this is
> > not needed at all (for example, for a pseudo-filesystem or something
> > like romfs).
>   Hum, I'd avoid this excercise at least for filesystem where
> sync_filesystem() is obviously useless - proc, debugfs, pstore, devpts,
> also always read-only filesystems such as isofs, qnx4, qnx6, befs, cramfs,
> efs, freevxfs, romfs, squashfs. I think you can find a couple more which
> clearly don't care about sync_filesystem() if you look a bit closer.
> 
>
> 								Honza

I guess the same is true for other file systems which are mounted ro
too. So maybe a check for MS_RDONLY before doing the sync in those
cases?

Steve.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
	codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.org, Adrian Hunter <ad>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:28:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394728103.2767.32.camel@menhir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140313162319.GA504@quack.suse.cz>

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:23 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
>                                   ^^remount
> 
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs().  This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
> > 
> > However, it's possible that there might be some file systems that are
> > actually depending on this behavior.  In most file systems, it's
> > probably fine to only call sync_filesystem() when transitioning from
> > read-write to read-only, and there are some file systems where this is
> > not needed at all (for example, for a pseudo-filesystem or something
> > like romfs).
>   Hum, I'd avoid this excercise at least for filesystem where
> sync_filesystem() is obviously useless - proc, debugfs, pstore, devpts,
> also always read-only filesystems such as isofs, qnx4, qnx6, befs, cramfs,
> efs, freevxfs, romfs, squashfs. I think you can find a couple more which
> clearly don't care about sync_filesystem() if you look a bit closer.
> 
>
> 								Honza

I guess the same is true for other file systems which are mounted ro
too. So maybe a check for MS_RDONLY before doing the sync in those
cases?

Steve.



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
	codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Phillip Lougher <phillip@squashfs.org.uk>,
	ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:28:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394728103.2767.32.camel@menhir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140313162319.GA504@quack.suse.cz>

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:23 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
>                                   ^^remount
> 
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs().  This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
> > 
> > However, it's possible that there might be some file systems that are
> > actually depending on this behavior.  In most file systems, it's
> > probably fine to only call sync_filesystem() when transitioning from
> > read-write to read-only, and there are some file systems where this is
> > not needed at all (for example, for a pseudo-filesystem or something
> > like romfs).
>   Hum, I'd avoid this excercise at least for filesystem where
> sync_filesystem() is obviously useless - proc, debugfs, pstore, devpts,
> also always read-only filesystems such as isofs, qnx4, qnx6, befs, cramfs,
> efs, freevxfs, romfs, squashfs. I think you can find a couple more which
> clearly don't care about sync_filesystem() if you look a bit closer.
> 
>
> 								Honza

I guess the same is true for other file systems which are mounted ro
too. So maybe a check for MS_RDONLY before doing the sync in those
cases?

Steve.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
	codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Phillip Lougher <phillip@squashfs.org.uk>,
	ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:28:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394728103.2767.32.camel@menhir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140313162319.GA504@quack.suse.cz>

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:23 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
>                                   ^^remount
> 
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs().  This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
> > 
> > However, it's possible that there might be some file systems that are
> > actually depending on this behavior.  In most file systems, it's
> > probably fine to only call sync_filesystem() when transitioning from
> > read-write to read-only, and there are some file systems where this is
> > not needed at all (for example, for a pseudo-filesystem or something
> > like romfs).
>   Hum, I'd avoid this excercise at least for filesystem where
> sync_filesystem() is obviously useless - proc, debugfs, pstore, devpts,
> also always read-only filesystems such as isofs, qnx4, qnx6, befs, cramfs,
> efs, freevxfs, romfs, squashfs. I think you can find a couple more which
> clearly don't care about sync_filesystem() if you look a bit closer.
> 
>
> 								Honza

I guess the same is true for other file systems which are mounted ro
too. So maybe a check for MS_RDONLY before doing the sync in those
cases?

Steve.


_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
	cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
	codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@thunk.org,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Phillip Lougher <phillip@squashfs.org.uk>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:28:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394728103.2767.32.camel@menhir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140313162319.GA504@quack.suse.cz>

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:23 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
>                                   ^^remount
> 
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs().  This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
> > 
> > However, it's possible that there might be some file systems that are
> > actually depending on this behavior.  In most file systems, it's
> > probably fine to only call sync_filesystem() when transitioning from
> > read-write to read-only, and there are some file systems where this is
> > not needed at all (for example, for a pseudo-filesystem or something
> > like romfs).
>   Hum, I'd avoid this excercise at least for filesystem where
> sync_filesystem() is obviously useless - proc, debugfs, pstore, devpts,
> also always read-only filesystems such as isofs, qnx4, qnx6, befs, cramfs,
> efs, freevxfs, romfs, squashfs. I think you can find a couple more which
> clearly don't care about sync_filesystem() if you look a bit closer.
> 
>
> 								Honza

I guess the same is true for other file systems which are mounted ro
too. So maybe a check for MS_RDONLY before doing the sync in those
cases?

Steve.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-13 16:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-05 14:13 Extremely slow remounts with concurrent I/O Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-06 13:56 ` [PATCH, RFC] jbd2: don't write non-commit blocks synchronously Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-06 17:28   ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-06 18:27     ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-06 18:45       ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-06 18:37     ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-08 16:08 ` [PATCH, RFC] fs: only call sync_filesystem() when remounting read-only Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-10 11:45   ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-10 14:41     ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-10 12:15   ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-13  0:36   ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-13  1:16     ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13  3:14       ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13  6:04         ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-13 12:55           ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13  7:39     ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-03-13 14:20       ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs() Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:22         ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:20         ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:20         ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:20         ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:20         ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:50         ` Anders Larsen
2014-03-13 16:23         ` [Cluster-devel] " Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23           ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23           ` Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23           ` Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23           ` Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23           ` Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:28           ` Steven Whitehouse [this message]
2014-03-13 16:28             ` [Ocfs2-devel] [Cluster-devel] " Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28             ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28             ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28             ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28             ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28             ` [Cluster-devel] " Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28             ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 23:15             ` [Cluster-devel] " Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15               ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15               ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15               ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15               ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15               ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14 12:13               ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13                 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13                 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13                 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13                 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13                 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14  0:33         ` Steve French
2014-03-14  0:33           ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Steve French
2014-03-14  0:33           ` Steve French
2014-03-14  0:33           ` Steve French
2014-03-14  0:33           ` Steve French
2014-03-14  0:33           ` Steve French
2014-03-14  1:23           ` [Cluster-devel] " Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14  1:23             ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14  1:23             ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14  1:23             ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14  1:23             ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14  1:23             ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-08 16:08 ` [PATCH, RFC] fs: only call sync_filesystem() when remounting read-only Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13  7:19 ` Extremely slow remounts with concurrent I/O Dave Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1394728103.2767.32.camel@menhir \
    --to=swhiteho@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.