From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39896 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755249Ab1CRCMX (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:12:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:12:14 +1100 From: NeilBrown To: Trond Myklebust Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Small O_SYNC writes are no longer NFS_DATA_SYNC Message-ID: <20110318131214.0e2c840a@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: <1300412966.9671.9.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <20110216171555.6642c630@notabene.brown> <1300405987.4621.10.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20110318120417.435551da@notabene.brown> <1300412966.9671.9.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:49:26 -0400 Trond Myklebust wrote: > However we could adopt the Solaris convention of always starting > writebacks with a FILE_SYNC, and then falling back to UNSTABLE for the > second rpc call and all subsequent calls... > That approach certainly has merit. However, as we know from the wbc info whether the write is small and sync - which is the only case where I think a STABLE write is needed - I cannot see why you don't want to just use that information to guide the choice of 'stable' or not ??? NeilBrown