On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 03:03:29PM +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Any data writeback is done before calling ->fsync.
What happens to indirect blocks, inode size updates, etc? In general
the only correct form to use the datasync argument is along the lines
of:
if ((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC) ||
((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_SYNC) && !datasync)) {
/* write out the inode */
} else {
/*
* VFS inode not dirty, no need to write it out.
*
* If the filesystem support asynchronous inode writes,
* we may have to wait for them here.
*/
}
or rather mostly correct, as pointed out by Nick in this series, that's
why the above gets replaced with an equivalent check that also
participates in the writeback locking protocol in this series.
For gfs2 on current mainline an fsync respecting that would look like:
static int gfs2_fsync(struct file *file, int datasync)
{
struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
struct gfs2_inode *ip = GFS2_I(inode);
int ret = 0;
if (gfs2_is_jdata(ip) {
gfs2_log_flush(GFS2_SB(inode), ip);
return 0;
}
if ((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC) ||
((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_SYNC) && !datasync))
sync_inode_metadata(inode, 1);
else if (gfs2_is_stuffed(ip))
gfs2_log_flush(GFS2_SB(inode), ip->i_gl);
}
Note that the asynchronous write_inode_now is replaced with a
sync_inode_metadata, which doesn't incorrectly write data again, and
makes sure we do a synchronous write.
I'm still not quite sure how the gfs2_log_flush are supposed to work.
What's the reason we don't need the ->write_inode call for journaled
data mode? Also is it guaranteed that we might not have an asynchronous
transaction that update the inode in the log, e.g. why doesn't gfs2
need some sort of log flush even if the VFS inode is not dirty, unlike
most other journaled filesystems.
--