is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?

xfs

is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?

To:	xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:09:47 -0500
Sender:	xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)

After Lachlan's fix to separate on-disk and in-memory sizes, and only
update on-disk when data is on-disk
(http://www.linux.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00020.html) is the
XFS_ITRUNCATED flag / flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?

Thanks,
-Eric

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, Eric Sandeen <= Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, Dave Chinner Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, Eric Sandeen Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, DS Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, Eric Sandeen Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, Eric Sandeen Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, DS Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, Dave Chinner

Previous by Date:	Re: XFS: 2.6.26-rc6 link count mismatch for inode, Marco Berizzi
Next by Date:	Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, Dave Chinner
Previous by Thread:	Directory mtime update issue (kernel 2.6.25), Michael-John Turner
Next by Thread:	Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?, Dave Chinner
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]