From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751477AbZIBK0Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2009 06:26:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751401AbZIBK0Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2009 06:26:24 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:55471 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751350AbZIBK0Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2009 06:26:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:26:26 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Jan Kara Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chris.mason@oracle.com, david@fromorbit.com, hch@infradead.org, tytso@mit.edu, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] writeback: get rid of generic_sync_sb_inodes() export Message-ID: <20090902102626.GR12579@kernel.dk> References: <1251880967-1136-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1251880967-1136-2-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <20090902101333.GB17842@duck.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090902101333.GB17842@duck.novell.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 02 2009, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 02-09-09 10:42:40, Jens Axboe wrote: > > This adds two new exported functions: > > > > - sync_inodes_sb(), which writes out dirty inodes on a super_block, and > > - sync_inodes_sb_wait(), which does the same but also waits for IO > > completion. > This is a nice cleanup. I only find the name sync_inodes_sb() slightly > misleading and the comment by that function as well. The name should rather > be something like writeback_inodes_sb() (and sync_inodes_sb_wait() could > stay just sync_inodes_sb()) - the writeback it does does not really > guarantee anything. For example it can skip inodes or pages it does not > like for some reason. What that function really does is - try to write some > dirty pages on that superblock and don't try too hard. > I don't insist on the renaming of the function but I really thing the > comment should be improved. I don't disagree, I was a bit torn on the naming as well. I will make that change, thanks for the feedback! I'd really like your feedback on the pin_sb_for_writeback() stuff too, since that is the contentious bit. And, this goes for others as well, I'd appreciate any reviewed-by and/or acked-by on patches. -- Jens Axboe