Re: ext4: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync

["Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao" <fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp>]

On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 17:46 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 07:40:45PM +0900, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
> > @@ -76,25 +77,34 @@ int ext4_sync_file(struct file *file, st
> >  	 */
> >  	if (ext4_should_journal_data(inode)) {
> >  		ret = ext4_force_commit(inode->i_sb);
> > +		if (!(journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER))
> > +			goto no_journal_barrier;
> >  		goto out;
> >  	}
> 
> All of these goto statements makes it one gigantic pile of spaghetti.
> The code will be much more understable if you do:
> 
> 		if (!(journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER))
> 			block_flush_device(inode->i_sb);
> 		return ret;	
> 
> >  
> > -	if (datasync && !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC))
> > -		goto out;
> > +	if (datasync && !(i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC))
> > +		goto flush_blkdev;
> >  
> 
> Maybe instead:
> 	if (datasync && !(i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC)) {
> 		if (i_state & I_DIRTY_PAGES)
> 			block_flush_device(inode->i_sb);
> 		return ret;
> 	}
> 
> 
> > -		if (journal && (journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER))
> > -			blkdev_issue_flush(inode->i_sb->s_bdev, NULL);
> > +		if (journal && !(journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER))
> > +			goto no_journal_barrier;
> > +		goto out;
> 
> Maybe instead:
> 		if (journal && !(journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER))
> 			block_flush_device(inode->i_sb);
> 		return ret;
>   	}
> 
> I'm not a fanatic about eliminating all goto's, but "goto out" which
> could be replaced by "return ret;" is just silly.

Yes, you are right. I just wanted to follow the current style of the
code, but I got carried away and took things a bit too far.

I'll be replying to this email with a new iteration of the patch-set
that leaves out the potentially conflictive bits and should be more
readable.

Regards,

Fernando