From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:30:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:30:39 -0400 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:47036 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:30:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:30:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro To: Andrea Arcangeli cc: Linus Torvalds , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 In-Reply-To: <20010920010338.B720@athlon.random> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 05:17:23PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > > fsync_dev() is not needed for raw devices or swap. It _is_ needed for > > file access. > > then what's the difference between raw devices and swap. Keep in mind that at some point we may want to add exclusions - e.g. "swapon() messing with block_size when accidentially called for mounted fs" problem can be easily solved that way - that's probably the simplest way to deal with it. Ditto for RAID vs. filesystem - current code for that is ugly and not too reliable. > And there's reason we should we avoid the fsync_dev with the raw devices > and swap. Umm... Not doing unnecessary work? Semantics of releasing a block device depends on the kind of use. BTW, I'm less than sure that fsync_dev() is the right thing for file access now that you've got that in pagecache - __block_fsync() seems to be more correct thing to do. > I just found it an useless complication. in the eye of beholder... /me goes to get some sleep.