From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:30:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20081029103029.GC5953@wotan.suse.de> References: <20081028144715.683011000@suse.de> <20081028153953.GB3082@wotan.suse.de> <20081028222746.GB4985@disturbed> <20081029001653.GF15599@wotan.suse.de> <20081029031645.GE4985@disturbed> <20081029091203.GA32545@infradead.org> <20081029092143.GA5953@wotan.suse.de> <20081029094417.GA21824@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason To: Christoph Hellwig , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081029094417.GA21824@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:44:17AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:21:43AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Please do. > > Well, there's one stumling block I haven't made progress on yet: > > I've changed the prototype of ->fsync to lose the dentry as we should > always have a valid file struct. Except that nfsd doesn't on > directories. So I either need to fake up a file there, or bail out > and add a ->dir_sync export operation that needs just a dentry. OK. I don't know much about hthat code, but I would think nfsd should look as close to the syscall layer as possible. I guess there must be something prohibitive (some protocol semantics?). Is there anything that particularly makes it a file operation as opposed to an inode operation?