From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in writeback_inodes_sb_nr Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:16:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20110722151604.GD30317@infradead.org> References: <20110711194835.GI5482@quack.suse.cz> <20110711201157.GA21460@infradead.org> <20110712103453.GC31226@quack.suse.cz> <20110712104132.GA14189@infradead.org> <20110712223715.GC13656@quack.suse.cz> <20110714230854.GA29160@quack.suse.cz> <20110719165639.GC11540@infradead.org> <20110721183523.GA4509@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Curt Wohlgemuth , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:49826 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754524Ab1GVPQH (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:16:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110721183523.GA4509@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:35:23PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > You're also skipping the ->sync_fs and quotasync calls the first round. > Well, kind of. Since writeback is running asynchronously, we have no way > to call ->sync_fs(sb, 0) just after async inode writeback is done (and it > doesn't really make sense to call it before that moment). So we call > synchronous inode writeback first and only then ->sync_fs(). I don't nessecarily say it's a bad thing, but when you do subtile behaviour changes like this it at least needs to be clearly documented in the changelog, or even better split into a patch on it's own. > Where would you like to document the change? commit log.