> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bottomley [mailto:james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:10 PM
>
> On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 08:30 +0000, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Bottomley
> [mailto:james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:19 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I think we've all agreed we can do it ... it's now a question of
> > > whether
> we
> > > can stomach the ick factor of actually initiating a transaction in close
> > > ... I'm
> still
> > > feeling queasy.
> >
> > The file "close" here can I understand that the file system will call the
> "release"
> > function at the file_operations struct?
> > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/fs.h#L1538
> >
> > So, James you are meaning that we could initiating the update transaction
> > inside the f_ops->release() and return the error code if update failed in
> > this
> > function?
>
> Well, that's what I was thinking. However the return value of ->release
> doesn't get propagated in sys_close (or indeed anywhere ... no idea why
> it returns an int) thanks to the task work additions, so we'd actually
> have to use the operation whose value is propagated in sys_close() which
> turns out to be flush.
>
> James
>
Okay, I think I got you. Just to double check for in case: you are meaning
to implement it at f_ops->flush() instead of f_ops->release().
Thanks & Regards,
Wilson
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a���
0��h���i
