[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3)

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?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>