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

[Machida, Hiroyuki]

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/