Thank you for your reply.
new_dir->i_ctime = new_dir->i_mtime = new_dir->i_atime = EXFAT_I(new_dir)->i_crtime = current_time(new_dir); exfat_truncate_atime(&new_dir->i_atime); - if (IS_DIRSYNC(new_dir)) - exfat_sync_inode(new_dir); - else - mark_inode_dirty(new_dir); + exfat_update_inode(new_dir);i_pos = ((loff_t)EXFAT_I(old_inode)->dir.dir << 32) | (EXFAT_I(old_inode)->entry & 0xffffffff); exfat_unhash_inode(old_inode); exfat_hash_inode(old_inode, i_pos); - if (IS_DIRSYNC(new_dir)) - exfat_sync_inode(old_inode); - else - mark_inode_dirty(old_inode); + exfat_update_inode(old_inode);This is checking if old_inode is IS_DIRSYNC, not new_dir. Is there any reason ?
To eliminate meaningless usage and simplify it. Th exfat does not have an attribute that indicates whether each file/dir should be synced(such as ext4). Therefore, sync necessity cannot be set for each inode, so sync necessity of the whole FS setting(sb-> s_flags) is inherited. As a result, the following values are all the same. IS_DIRSYNC (new_dir) IS_DIRSYNC (old_dir) IS_DIRSYNC (old_inode) sb-> s_flags & SB_SYNCHRONOUS | SB_DIRSYNC In exfat, IS_DIRSYNC only works as a shortcut to sb->s_flags. Even if S_SYNC or S_DIRSYNC were set to inode->i_flags, the current implementation is inappropriate. Whether to sync or not should be determined by "IS_DIRSYNC(new_dir)||IS_DIRSYNC(old_dir)", I think. (Syncing only old_dir is a high risk of losing file) Whatever, no one sets S_SYNC and S_DIRSYNC in exfat, so the behavior is no different. *** Please tell me your opinion about "aggregate dir-entry updates into __exfat_write_inode()" BR --- Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada...@gmail.com>
