From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] writeback: Move I_DIRTY_PAGES handling
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:39:27 -0400
Message-ID: <20120430143927.GC10964@infradead.org>
References: <1332284191-21076-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
 <1332284191-21076-4-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
 <20120322024114.GA20507@localhost>
 <20120322083540.GA14485@quack.suse.cz>
 <20120328031154.GA20342@localhost>
 <20120328151247.GB2487@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:57077
	"EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752354Ab2D3Oja (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:39:30 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120328151247.GB2487@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:12:47AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:11:54AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Cannot speak for AFS, however I don't see the difference, either.
> > Why would afs_fsync/afs_setattr need to keep the inode in dirty list?
> > It seems fine to just remove that line?
> 
> All of afs_fsync looks bogus to me.  I'd take a bet that if you
> removed everything but the filemap_write_and_wait_range call it would
> still work exactly as it did before.  Is there a good testsuite for afs?

Dave, any chance to get your input on afs_fsync?  I think it could and
should be dramatically simplified.