lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH] drivers/staging/exfat - explain the fs_sync() issue in TODO
Date
We've seen several incorrect patches for fs_sync() calls in the exfat driver.
Add code to the TODO that explains this isn't just a delete code and refactor,
but that actual analysis of when the filesystem should be flushed to disk
needs to be done.

Signed-off-by: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>

---
diff --git a/drivers/staging/exfat/TODO b/drivers/staging/exfat/TODO
index a3eb282f9efc..77c302acfcb8 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/exfat/TODO
+++ b/drivers/staging/exfat/TODO
@@ -3,6 +3,15 @@ same for ffsWriteFile.

exfat_core.c - fs_sync(sb,0) all over the place looks fishy as hell.
There's only one place that calls it with a non-zero argument.
+Randomly removing fs_sync() calls is *not* the right answer, especially
+if the removal then leaves a call to fs_set_vol_flags(VOL_CLEAN), as that
+says the file system is clean and synced when we *know* it isn't.
+The proper fix here is to go through and actually analyze how DELAYED_SYNC
+should work, and any time we're setting VOL_CLEAN, ensure the file system
+has in fact been synced to disk. In other words, changing the 'false' to
+'true' is probably more correct. Also, it's likely that the one current
+place where it actually does an bdev_sync isn't sufficient in the DELAYED_SYNC
+case.

ffsTruncateFile - if (old_size <= new_size) {
That doesn't look right. How did it ever work? Are they relying on lazy
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-02 21:02    [W:0.049 / U:20.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site