From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext2: add wait flag support to sync_fs Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:08:58 -0800 Message-ID: <20091120090858.62ae15b3@nehalam> References: <20091117174617.285298261@vyatta.com> <20091117174647.402219318@vyatta.com> <20091119153419.GB2943@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20091120103622.GA29143@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kara , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:40992 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754173AbZKTRJN (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:09:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091120103622.GA29143@infradead.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:36:22 -0500 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:34:19PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > BTW: Christoph, why did you choose to call ext2_sync_fs with wait == 1 > > from ext2_write_super()? I'd think (and looking into callsites seem to > > confirm that) that ->write_super() was meant to be asynchronous... > > No particular reason - the argument wasn't and still isn't used in ext2. > And yes, now that ->sync_fs is mandatory ->write_super should be > asynchronous. > Shouldn't super block (and all other) updates be synchronous if ext2 is mounted with SYNC and DIRSYNC? --