[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CFT][PATCH] superblock handling changes

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Folks, the patch below the fixed and combined variant of
> > the last series of patches sent to Linus.
> Al,
> Since you are working on that code, would you mind to add some comments
> about IO completion guarantees (also why we don't guarantee fsync() to
> work as it should :)) there ?

I'm _not_ working on that side of things. Let's not add that into the
mix, OK? If you look at inode.c changes you'll see that the only thing
they expect from __sync_one() is to retake inode_lock before moving the
inode from the locked list. Other than that patch doesn't know and
doesn't care about fsync() semantics and implementation.

We have enough fun on the superblock side of the business. Let's keep
the fsync() stuff separate - they are pretty much orthogonal to each

Right now I don't want to open that can of worms. Sorry.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.082 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site