Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix blkdev_issue_flush() failure handling

Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
2009-03-31T04:23:56Z

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 30 March 2009, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
>> Chris Mason wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 22:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> Theodore Tso wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 12:43:22PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>>>> As long as we keep the call there this is probably good, but after
>>>>>> talking w/ Chris Mason, I think the call is extraneous anyway and should
>>>>>> probably just be removed...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree, but it takes a lot of digging to be completely sure of
>>>>> that it's safe to remove it. Interestingly, it was you who added the
>>>>> patch which added the call to blkdev_issue_flush():
>>>>> commit d755fb384250d6bd7fd18a0930e71965acc8e72e
>>>>> Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>>>>> Date: Fri Jul 11 19:27:31 2008 -0400
>>>> Yes, it was. Although I got the idea when hch pointed out that SuSE did
>>>> this... thanks to Chris. It's come full circle. :)
>>> Grin. I'm not sure the I_DIRTY checks alone are enough to decide that a
>>> commit is required though. I think the inode could be clean but still
>>> have metadata that needs commit.
>> Chris, I have just sent patches that attempt to fix both ext3 and
>> ext4 while also adding a per-device sysfs knob tu disable
>> write-flushes. A previous version of this patch set added a new
>> generic mount option but comments from Christoph and others
>> convinced me to turn it into a per-device tunable. Could you take
>> a look at the patches?
>>
>> Bartlomiej, I have just noticed that I happened to be working on
>> patches for reiserfs and xfs similar to the ones you sent earlier
>> this week. I picked some bits from your submission so I took the
>> liberty to add your signed-off to my patches. Could you take a
>> look at them and let me know if you are confortable with that?
>
> I'm fine with people building bigger changes on top of my patches
> but if you do so you please clearly denote in the patch description
> what changes you have applied to the original patch...

You are right, sorry about that. I will add a short changelog when I
resubmit the patches.

Thanks!

- Fernando