From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:30:48 -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 m9TAUXKl000760 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:30:35 -0700 Received: from mx1.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 8D0C1B0162F for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (ns1.suse.de [195.135.220.2]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 6rTy94e23RUSrLAa for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:30:29 +0100 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3) Message-ID: <20081029103029.GC5953@wotan.suse.de> References: <20081028144715.683011000@suse.de> <20081028153953.GB3082@wotan.suse.de> <20081028222746.GB4985@disturbed> <20081029001653.GF15599@wotan.suse.de> <20081029031645.GE4985@disturbed> <20081029091203.GA32545@infradead.org> <20081029092143.GA5953@wotan.suse.de> <20081029094417.GA21824@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081029094417.GA21824@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:44:17AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:21:43AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Please do. > > Well, there's one stumling block I haven't made progress on yet: > > I've changed the prototype of ->fsync to lose the dentry as we should > always have a valid file struct. Except that nfsd doesn't on > directories. So I either need to fake up a file there, or bail out > and add a ->dir_sync export operation that needs just a dentry. OK. I don't know much about hthat code, but I would think nfsd should look as close to the syscall layer as possible. I guess there must be something prohibitive (some protocol semantics?). Is there anything that particularly makes it a file operation as opposed to an inode operation?