From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:18:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:18:27 -0400 Received: from weta.f00f.org ([203.167.249.89]:13968 "HELO weta.f00f.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:18:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:19:04 +1200 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.8-pre3 fsync entire path (+reiserfs fsync semantic change patch) Message-ID: <20010804131904.E18108@weta.f00f.org> In-Reply-To: <01080315090600.01827@starship> <9keqr6$egl$1@penguin.transmeta.com>, <9keqr6$egl$1@penguin.transmeta.com> <20010804100143.A17774@weta.f00f.org> <3B6B4B21.B68F4F87@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B6B4B21.B68F4F87@zip.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-No-Archive: Yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 06:08:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: Ow. You just crippled ext3. How so? The Flush all transactions on fsync behaviour that resierfs did/does have at present too? (There are 'fixes' to reiserfs for this). I don't think an ext2 problem (which I don't think is a problem at all) should be "fixed" at the VFS layer when other filesystems are perfectly happy without it, no? If you want to be sure that when you fsync a file, that, silly bugger rename games further up the path aside, the entire path is also on disk, the VFS is the only place to do it with the current fs API. really, there is _some_ merit in the argument that open fsync close shouldn't loose the file... This whole thread, talking about "linux this" and "linux that" is off-base. It's ext2 we're talking about. This MTA requirement is a highly unusual and specialised thing - I don't see why the general-purpose ext2 should bear the burden of supporting it when other filesystems such as reiserfs (I think?) and ext3 support it naturally and better than ext2 ever will. Well, since it will only sync dirty blocks, it will hardly hurt ext2 that much at all --- and it will only force the dirty blocks in path components to be written when you fsync the file, thats probably only a single block anyhow. FWIW, I don't think it's unreasonable we do this, nor does it fix all the potential MTA problems :) Anyhow, that patch was bogus. As soon as I get some more clues, I'll send another one (trying to get more clueful now, not having much success!). --cw