From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] add a vfs_fsync helper Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:56:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20081222125622.GA3019@lst.de> References: <20081222090357.GA27399@lst.de> <20081222123534.GE13406@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net, agl@us.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs-devel@lists.launchpad.net, jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:45390 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752913AbYLVM4l (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:56:41 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081222123534.GE13406@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 01:35:34PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Seems like an improvement.. I've wanted to know, though, what do > we need i_mutex for? Is it just convention, or is there some good > reason to have it in generic code? At least XFS doesn't need it. Same for the filemap_fdatawrite / filemap_fdatawait which at least for filesystems that want to provide integrity guarantees is in the wrong place. This patch is a first one out my work to refactor fsync, and I'm trying to feed it to mainline in pieces. The next one will be to make sure nfsd always has a struct file available when calling fsync, but I need to do some extensive benchmarking. After that we can change the fsync prototype to drop the dentry paramters, and move the filemap_fdatawrite / filemap_fdatawait aswell as the i_mutex locking into the actual methods.