From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o0PBq636052236 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:52:06 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E9274135DD40 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id GiDWs9Lt1ScEMR1a for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:53:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:53:08 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] xfs: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async Message-ID: <20100125115308.GC8595@infradead.org> References: <1264400564-19704-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1264400564-19704-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1264400564-19704-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com > diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c > index 98b8937..ca0cc59 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c > @@ -270,8 +270,7 @@ xfs_sync_inode_attr( > goto out_unlock; > } > > - error = xfs_iflush(ip, (flags & SYNC_WAIT) ? > - XFS_IFLUSH_SYNC : XFS_IFLUSH_DELWRI); > + error = xfs_iflush(ip, (flags & SYNC_WAIT)); No need for the masking here, as xfs_iflush simply ignores SYNC_TRYLOCK. > /* Now we have an inode that needs flushing */ > error = xfs_iflush(ip, sync_mode); > + if (!(sync_mode & SYNC_WAIT)) > + goto requeue_no_flock; So for the !wait case we entirely ignore the return value? We should at least check for an I/O error here I think. Also in this context the requeue label name doesn't fit too well, even if it's the same action as the requeue. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs