From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15])
	by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422307F50
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:51:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11])
	by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D380DAC001
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:51:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with
	ESMTP id BQ6ND96O3xvw0YnZ (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA
	bits=256 verify=NO) for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>;
	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:51:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:51:09 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: ensure truncate forces zeroed blocks to disk
Message-ID: <20150223205109.GE13522@infradead.org>
References: <1424299725-26067-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1424299725-26067-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com

This looks correct, but is there a good (performance) reason against
simply unconditionally flushing and waiting?

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs