Date:   Sun, 19 Feb 2023 05:30:31 +0900
From:   asmadeus@codewreck.org
To:     Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
Cc:     Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, rminnich@gmail.com,
        lucho@ionkov.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux_oss@crudebyte.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] fs/9p: Remove unnecessary superblock flags
Message-ID: <Y/E1Z0sdaS06GMaN@codewreck.org>
References: <20230124023834.106339-1-ericvh@kernel.org>
 <20230218003323.2322580-1-ericvh@kernel.org>
 <20230218003323.2322580-5-ericvh@kernel.org>
 <Y/CbhQVeO8/pxrBE@codewreck.org>
 <CAFkjPTmBs10YAPrXYx3hQHvVu0P3+_fJ+_eZ+9z6h7csSqRYbw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFkjPTmBs10YAPrXYx3hQHvVu0P3+_fJ+_eZ+9z6h7csSqRYbw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Eric Van Hensbergen wrote on Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 10:24:17AM -0600:
> That's fair -- and it didn't seem to hurt anything to have DIRSYNC at
> the moment, so I can drop this patch if we think its too much noise.
> I guess it was more of a reaction the filesystem implicitly setting
> mount flags which might override whatever the user intended.  FWIW
> SB_SYNCHRONOUS did seem to have an effect on behavior (although I
> didn't specifically track down where) -- I noticed this because the
> problems Christian found seemed to go away if I mounted the filesystem
> with sync (which basically ended up overriding aspects of the cache
> configuration I guess).

I guess it doesn't hurt either way; happy to keep this patch in doubt.

-- 
Dominique