From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Bacik Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:14:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4E0B6B96.7020606@redhat.com> References: <1309370716-12235-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> <20110629180939.GA9934@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63850 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757463Ab1F2SPB (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:15:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110629180939.GA9934@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/29/2011 02:09 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> -int blkdev_fsync(struct file *filp, int datasync) >> +int blkdev_fsync(struct file *filp, loff_t start, loff_t end, int datasync) >> { >> struct inode *bd_inode = filp->f_mapping->host; >> struct block_device *bdev = I_BDEV(bd_inode); >> @@ -389,14 +389,10 @@ int blkdev_fsync(struct file *filp, int datasync) >> * i_mutex and doing so causes performance issues with concurrent >> * O_SYNC writers to a block device. >> */ >> - mutex_unlock(&bd_inode->i_mutex); >> - > > Now that i_mutex on entry isn't held the comment above can be removed. > The comment is still useful since it states why we don't take the i_mutex at all, so I think it's still valuable. Thanks, Josef