lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ext3: wait on all pending commits in ext3_sync_fs
Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>> On Tue 13-01-09 23:24:02, Theodore Tso wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 04:14:11PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> This looks sane to me, and it does fix the below testcase.
>>>>
>>>> Care to formally propose it?
>>> Can we confirm what is being proposed? From following this thread, I
>>> think what folks are suggesting is:
>>>
>>> 1) Revert the current "ext3/4: wait on all pending ocmmits in ext3/4_sync_fs"
>> Yes.
>>
>>> 2) Apply Jan's patch "jbd[2]: Fix return value of journal_start_commit()"
>> Yes.
>>
>>> 3) Also apply Jan's patch "jbd2: Skip commit of a transaction without
>>> any buffers" since it appears to be a good optimization (although it's
>>> not clear it would happen once we revert (1), above.
>> Yes, it's an optimization but I'm still a bit afraid about something
>> relying on jbd2_journal_force_commit() implying a barrier which would not
>> always be a case after this patch... So we should probably audit all users of
>> ext4_force_commit() and check that this change is fine with them.
>
> Ted/Jan/Eric,
>
> I just wanted to followup on this to see what the plan is. Items 1
> and 2 haven't occurred in any of the ext4.git branches that I can see.
> I could be missing something but it seems this may have slipped
> through the ext[34] cracks?

Hm, I agree.

Jan, do you want to re-send it in its own message rather than buried in
the other thread? I don't know how we technically handle a "revert"
upstream, to be honest.

-Eric


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-29 21:09    [W:0.060 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site