From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:59692 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750961AbdJCT7x (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:59:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:59:30 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, bart.vanassche@wdc.com, ming.lei@redhat.com, darrick.wong@oracle.com, jikos@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, pavel@ucw.cz, len.brown@intel.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, jgross@suse.com, todd.e.brandt@linux.intel.com, nborisov@suse.com, jack@suse.cz, martin.petersen@oracle.com, ONeukum@suse.com, oleksandr@natalenko.name, oleg.b.antonyan@gmail.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 4/5] ext4: add fs freezing support on suspend/hibernation Message-ID: <20171003195930.ivgaccdabxczar62@thunk.org> References: <20171003185313.1017-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20171003185313.1017-5-mcgrof@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171003185313.1017-5-mcgrof@kernel.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:53:12AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > @@ -4926,7 +4926,7 @@ static int ext4_unfreeze(struct super_block *sb) > ext4_set_feature_journal_needs_recovery(sb); > } > > - ext4_commit_super(sb, 1); > + ext4_commit_super(sb, 0); > return 0; > } > After we remove add the NEEDS_RECOVERY flag, we need to make sure recovery flag is pushed out to disk before any other changes are allowed to be pushed out to disk. That's why we originally did the update synchronously. There are other ways we could fulfill this requirements, but doing a synchronous update is the simplest way to handle this. Was it necessary to change this given the other changes you are making the fs freeze implementation? - Ted