Re: [PATCH 1/2] miss-sync changes on attributes (Re: [PATCH 2/2][FAT] miss-sync issues on sync mount (miss-sync on utime))

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



"Machida, Hiroyuki" <[email protected]> writes:

> OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> writes:
>> 
>>>However there's not much point in writing a brand-new function when
>>>write_inode_now() almost does the right thing.  We can share the
>>>implementation within fs-writeback.c.
>> Indeed. We use the generic_osync_inode() for it?
>
> Please let me confirm.
> Using generic_osync_inode(inode, NULL, OSYNC_INODE) instaed of
> sync_inode_wodata(inode) is peferable for changes on fs/open.c,
> even it would write data. Is it correct?

No, I only thought the interface is good. I don't know why it writes
data pages even if OSYNC_INODE only.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux