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 n4FHMdNC048530 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 12:22:39 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 5E04D19D0C03 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 10:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id HxBRmjsoGxvt0Ten for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 10:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 13:22:47 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] xfs: split inode flushing from xfs_sync_inodes_ag Message-ID: <20090515172246.GC14804@infradead.org> References: <20090514171233.942489000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090514171558.298098000@bombadil.infradead.org> <921ca19c0905142152u2a8012a9jba6f1d5b856df7ad@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <921ca19c0905142152u2a8012a9jba6f1d5b856df7ad@mail.gmail.com> 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: Sujit Karataparambil Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:22:31AM +0530, Sujit Karataparambil wrote: > here also should there be an > xfs_sync_inode_data(ip, flags); > xfs_iflush(ip, XFS_IFLUSH_SYNC); > > in out_unlock. No. We only want to perform the iflush if all the preconditions are met in the !SYNC_WAIT case. And we certainly do not want to do a data writeout from the metadata flush case - for one thing it does require the iolock, but most importantly the point of this series is to separate the two actions. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs