[PATCH] generic_osync_inode() with OSYNC_INODE only passed (Re: [PATCH1/2] miss-sync changes on attributes)

From: Machida, Hiroyuki
Date: Fri Oct 14 2005 - 08:08:57 EST

generic_osync_inode() seems to do over-writing, if OSYNC_INODE only passed.
According comments of generic_osync_inode(), it is expected to write inode
itself only. Current implementation trys to write data page, even if
OSYNC_INODE only passed. This patch fixes it.

This patch is preparetion of other patch to fix "miss-sync changes on

Machida, Hiroyuki wrote:

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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/