| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: do_sync() and XFSQA test 182 failures.... |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:19:46 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <20081031220349.GC19509@disturbed> |
| References: | <20081030085020.GP17077@disturbed> <20081030224625.GA18690@infradead.org> <20081031001249.GM4985@disturbed> <20081031004814.GN4985@disturbed> <20081031203716.GB11514@infradead.org> <20081031220349.GC19509@disturbed> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:03:49AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) > > > + xfs_sync_fsdata(XFS_M(sb), SYNC_WAIT); > > > > Not commenting on the rest yet, but I'm sure you noticed that before > > your patch we ever called xfs_sync_fsdata with SYNC_WAIT at all. I > > think with the current codebase there is nothing to guarantee we ever > > write the superblock out to disk as xfs_wait_buftarg specificly > > excludes the superblock (XBF_FS_MANAGED) > > Almost. unmount calls xfs_unmountfs_writesb() which does a > synchronous write of the superblock. But in the current code sync(1) > certainly never, ever triggers a superblock write we wait for... True, missed it due to the opencoding. With my patch to kill the shared readonly bits we should be able to make it use xfs_sync_fsdata for consistency. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Which FileSystem do you use on your postfix server?, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: do_sync() and XFSQA test 182 failures...., Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: do_sync() and XFSQA test 182 failures...., Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: do_sync() and XFSQA test 182 failures...., Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |