On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:29:45PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > 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. >
Yeah I thought about this and I wasn't sure, the only reason I left it where it was is because of the log_batch thing, I'm not sure what exactly that does and I didn't want to mess with what we have. If that can be done outside the mutex then lets do that. Thanks, Josef -- 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
