From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] writeback: Move clearing of I_SYNC into inode_sync_complete() Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:36:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20120430143641.GA10964@infradead.org> References: <1332284191-21076-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1332284191-21076-2-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Wu Fengguang , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:57066 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755968Ab2D3Ogr (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:36:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1332284191-21076-2-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:56:25PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > Move clearing of I_SYNC into inode_sync_complete(). It is more logical to have > clearing of I_SYNC bit and waking of waiters in one place. Also later we will > have two places needing to clear I_SYNC and wake up waiters so this allows them > to use the common helper. Moving of I_SYNC clearing to a later stage of > writeback_single_inode() is safe since we hold i_lock all the time. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara The code changes look good, but should we really remove a comment that describes memory barrier? IMHO any undocumented barrier is a bug waiting to happen. Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig