Good...
> + ** we call sync_supers first so that
> + ** fsync_dev_lockfs == fsync_dev for filesystems that don't provide
> + ** a lockfs call. Yes, it could be done in sync_supers_lockfs
> + ** instead, but this just makes it more explicit...
I would rather make it _less_ explicit, so that sync_supers_lockfs()
actually does the sb->s_op->write_super() call for us... Why? Because
we are already traversing the supers list at this function, and there is
no reason to waste the CPU cycles traversing this list twice. I think
the name "sync_supers_lockfs" is clear enough in showing that it is a
superset of "sync_supers" (try saying that 5 times fast ;-).
On a similar note, it is redundant that LVM calls fsync_dev() AND
fsync_dev_lockfs() if LVM_VFS_ENHANCEMENT is defined. From the above
reasoning (to only walk the supers list once) it would make sense to
call only *_lockfs() if it is available.
On an "add this patch to the kernel, please" note, support for the
write_super_lockfs() VFS method is already in ext3, so it is a good
thing, with the above caveats.
Cheers, Andreas
PS - I changed the CC list to have lvm-devel@ instead of mge@sistina.com
--
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/