From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n1F6mi4c046813 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:48:45 -0600 Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 97161193F4E9 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:48:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net [203.16.214.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id RYvZjZIurTaMcvyV for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:48:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:42:25 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/17] xfs: merge xfs_inode_flush into xfs_fs_write_inode Message-ID: <20090215064225.GA8830@disturbed> References: <20090126073136.384490000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090126073202.588218000@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090126073202.588218000@bombadil.infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 02:31:47AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Spliting the task for a VFS-induced inode flush into two functions doesn't > make any sense, so merge the two functions dealing with it. I just realised that we should really be calling xfs_inode_flush() from xfs_sync_inodes_ag() - it open codes xfs_inode_flush() and doesn't have any of the non-blocking flush code for async flushes... Thoughts? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs