| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3) |
| From: | Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:30:29 +0100 |
| Cc: | akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20081029094417.GA21824@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20081028144715.683011000@xxxxxxx> <20081028153953.GB3082@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081028222746.GB4985@disturbed> <20081029001653.GF15599@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081029031645.GE4985@disturbed> <20081029091203.GA32545@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081029092143.GA5953@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081029094417.GA21824@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.9i |
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? |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3), Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3), Jamie Lokier |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3), Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3), Jamie Lokier |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |