Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Hi, Dave,
>> Thanks for the review!
>>> or better still, factor xfs_file_fsync() so that it calls a helper
>>> that doesn't wait for data IO completion, and call that helper here
>>> too. The semantics of fsync/fdatasync are too complex to have to
>>> implement and maintain in multiple locations....
>> I definitely agree with consolidating things. However, there are four
>> blocking calls in xfs_file_fsync (filemap_write_and_wait_range,
>> xfs_blkdev_issue_flush, _xfs_log_force_lsn, and another call to
>> xfs_blkdev_issue_flush). How would you propose to make that
>> non-blocking given that those steps have to happen in sequence?
> OK, so re-reading your mail, I think you meant to just factor out
> everything except the filemap_write_and_wait_range. Here are a couple
> of patches which do that. Also, since we're not worried about blocking
> in the endio processing, just making things synchronous makes the code a
> lot simpler. Let me know what you think of the attached two patches
> (which I've already run through xfstests).
Dave, ping? Did you have a chance to take a look at these patches?