We already do the btrfs_wait_ordered_range which will do this for us, so just remove this call so we don't call it twice. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> --- fs/btrfs/file.c | 11 ++++++----- 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c index f0da02b..0c8ed6a 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c @@ -1492,14 +1492,15 @@ int btrfs_sync_file(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end, int datasync) trace_btrfs_sync_file(file, datasync); - ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, start, end); - if (ret) - return ret; mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex); - /* we wait first, since the writeback may change the inode */ + /* + * we wait first, since the writeback may change the inode, also wait + * ordered range does a filemape_write_and_wait_range which is why we + * don't do it above like other file systems. + */ root->log_batch++; - btrfs_wait_ordered_range(inode, 0, (u64)-1); + btrfs_wait_ordered_range(inode, start, end); root->log_batch++; /* -- 1.7.7.6 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
