Re: [patch 8/8] fs: add i_op->sync_inode

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 02:29:34AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Btw, there's an easy way how we could get this right, in fact
> the write_inode in XFS is already trying to do it, it's just the
> caller not copying with it:
> 
>  - if we can't get locks for a non-blocking ->write_inode we return
>    EAGAIN, and the callers sets the dirty bits again.

I just tried to implement this and noticed we're actually doing this
inside XFS - if we get our EAGAIN error from the lower level code
in ->write_inode we do a manual mark_inode_dirty_sync().  So as far
as XFS is concerned ->write_inode always pushes data into a state
where ->sync_fs writes it out, or if it was called with WB_SYNC_NONE
and couldn't get the locks redirties the inode, and thus is not affected
by the issue you mentioned.  I think this is also a good model for
other filesystems to follow.
--
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/