On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:06:41PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > 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);
Hmmm, I think there are some good benefits to doing the wait outside of the mutex. The question is, do we need to do it again after we take the mutex? I tend to think no, if you're racing another write with the fsync, you get what you deserve. -chris -- 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
