Re: [PATCH 1/2] miss-sync changes on attributes (Re: [PATCH 2/2][FAT]miss-sync issues on sync mount (miss-sync on utime))

From: Machida, Hiroyuki
Date: Wed Oct 12 2005 - 06:53:31 EST

OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
"Machida, Hiroyuki" <machida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:

Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> writes:

However there's not much point in writing a brand-new function when
write_inode_now() almost does the right thing. We can share the
implementation within fs-writeback.c.

Indeed. We use the generic_osync_inode() for it?

Please let me confirm.
Using generic_osync_inode(inode, NULL, OSYNC_INODE) instaed of
sync_inode_wodata(inode) is peferable for changes on fs/open.c,
even it would write data. Is it correct?

No, I only thought the interface is good. I don't know why it writes
data pages even if OSYNC_INODE only.

I checked 2.6.13 tree, following functions call generic_osync_inode().
However noone calls it with OSYNC_INODE. SO I can't find intention of
it's usage.

Does anyone know why generic_osync_inode() trys to write data page,
even if OSYNC_INODE only passed ?

- fs/reiserfs/file.c
reiserfs_file_write() OSYNC_METADATA | OSYNC_DATA
- mm/filemap.c
sync_page_range() OSYNC_METADATA
sync_page_range_nolock() OSYNC_METADATA
generic_file_direct_write OSYNC_METADATA

Hiroyuki Machida machida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at