From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:23:01 -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 m9TCMh2w012456 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:22:43 -0700 Received: from mail2.shareable.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7486012B01F2 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.shareable.org (mail2.shareable.org [80.68.89.115]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id KiCks52JX96YWIgC for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:22:35 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3) Message-ID: <20081029122234.GE846@shareable.org> 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> <20081029103029.GC5953@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081029103029.GC5953@wotan.suse.de> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Nick Piggin Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason Nick Piggin wrote: > 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? In principle, is fsync() required to flush all dirty data written through any file descriptor ever, or just dirty data written through the file descriptor used for fsync()? -- Jamie