Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:44:48 -0400 | From | Chris Mason <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 |
| |
On Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:50:16 AM -0400 Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> wrote:
>> The biggest exception is blkdev_writepage directly submits the io instead >> of marking the buffers dirty. This means the buffers won't be on >> the locked/dirty list, and they won't get waited on. Similar problem >> for direct io. > > <nod> And if you add Andrea's (perfectly valid) observation re having no > need to sync any fs structures we might have for that device, you get > __block_fsync(). After that it's easy to merge blkdev_close() code into > blkdev_put(). > >
Ok, __block_fsync is much better than just fsync_dev.
Are there other parts of blkdev_close you want merged into blkdev_put? Without changing the reread blocks on last close semantics, I think this is all we can do.
As far as I can tell, bdev->bd_inode is valid to send to __block_fsync, am I missing something?
--- linux/fs/block_dev.c Mon Sep 17 11:28:56 2001 +++ linux/fs/block_dev.c Thu Sep 20 11:21:39 2001 @@ -704,10 +704,9 @@ kdev_t rdev = to_kdev_t(bdev->bd_dev); /* this should become bdev */ down(&bdev->bd_sem); lock_kernel(); - if (kind == BDEV_FILE) - fsync_dev(rdev); - else if (kind == BDEV_FS) - fsync_no_super(rdev); + + __block_fsync(bdev->bd_inode) ; + /* only filesystems uses buffer cache for the metadata these days */ if (kind == BDEV_FS) invalidate_buffers(rdev); - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |