From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] NFS: Replace __nfs_write_mapping with sync_inode() Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:21:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20100126112148.GA25170@infradead.org> References: <20100125221544.16750.70574.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20100125221545.16750.63968.stgit@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Wu Fengguang , Peter Zijlstra , Jan Kara , Steve Rago , Jens Axboe , Peter Staubach , Arjan van de Ven , Ingo Molnar , linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100125221545.16750.63968.stgit-bi+AKbBUZKY6gyzm1THtWbp2dZbC/Bob@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:15:45PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > int nfs_wb_nocommit(struct inode *inode) > { > - return nfs_write_mapping(inode->i_mapping, FLUSH_NOCOMMIT); > + return filemap_write_and_wait(inode->i_mapping); Any point in keeping this as a wrapper for a single well-documented caller? Also taking i_mutex around it seems a bit questionable these days given that filemap_write_and_wait avoids lifelocks with writing applications okay and we use it without i_mutex all over the place. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html