Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 02:20:32PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I'm a bit nervous about exposing WB_SYNC_NONE to userspace, because
> > its semantics are *definitely* hard to describe.  For example, at the
> > moment if you do a WB_SYNC_NONE writeback, the writeback code will
> > clamp the amount of data written back for each inode to
> > MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES (1024) pages.
> Wha?  It does?  When did that get broken?

Oops, sorry, I misread the code in wb_writeback().  My bad!  I
misinterpreted what write_chunk does in that function.
MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES now really is the minimum amount of pages that
wb_writeback() will request the file system to write back.  I'm not
sure why we bother with write_chunk any more, but it shouldn't be
doing any harm any more.

					- Ted
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Home]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux