From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8EDLgH1002177
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:21:42 -0700
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 51239126E5DA
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mrv4mCpvGMHIIn8X for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:23:13 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] XFS: xfssyncd: don't call xfs_sync
Message-ID: <20080914132313.GC14266@infradead.org>
References: <1221314230-28618-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1221314230-28618-6-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20080913165856.GB17721@josefsipek.net> <20080913203549.GK5811@disturbed>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080913203549.GK5811@disturbed>
Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: xfs
To: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <jeffpc@josefsipek.net>, xfs@oss.sgi.com

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 06:35:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:58:56PM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 11:57:05PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > ...
> > > @@ -533,8 +538,15 @@ xfs_sync_worker(
> > >  {
> > >  	int		error;
> > >  
> > > -	if (!(mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY))
> > > -		error = xfs_sync(mp, SYNC_FSDATA | SYNC_BDFLUSH | SYNC_ATTR);
> > > +	if (!(mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY)) {
> > > +		xfs_log_force(mp, (xfs_lsn_t)0, XFS_LOG_FORCE);
> > > +		xfs_finish_reclaim_all(mp, 1, XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI_ELSE_ASYNC);
> > > +		/* dgc: errors ignored here */
> > 
> > Again, why?
> 
> Same again. No context for returning an error to someone useful,
> and will only fail in a shutdown situation.

We should probably put this is as comment her and in the previous spot
to avoid this question coming up again.