From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH] reiserfs:fix journaling issue regarding fsync() Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:24:10 -0400 Message-ID: <200606300824.12352.mason@suse.com> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060620153929.040f0750@172.19.0.2> <200606292047.14973.mason@suse.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20060630094908.0411c9d0@172.19.0.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com, reiser@namesys.com, reiserfs-dev@namesys.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:45771 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932557AbWF3MYG (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:24:06 -0400 To: Hisashi Hifumi In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060630094908.0411c9d0@172.19.0.2> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 29 June 2006 21:36, Hisashi Hifumi wrote: > Hi, > > At 09:47 06/06/30, Chris Mason wrote: > >Thanks for the patch. One problem is this will bump the transaction > > marker for atime updates too. I'd rather see the change done inside > >reiserfs_file_write. > > I did not realize that an atime updates is also influenced. > > >reiserfs_file_write already updates the transaction when blocks are > > allocated, but you're right that to be 100% correct we should cover the > > case when i_size increases but new blocks are not added. Was this the > > case you were trying to fix? > > Yes, that's right. > > So, I remade my patch as follows. > I tested this patch and confirmed that the kernel with this patch work > well. This is correct, excpet you need to put the update_inode_transaction call inside reiserfs_write_lock/unlock. -chris