| Message ID | 20170629131954.28733-18-jlayton@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Nice and simple, this looks great!
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:19:53AM -0400, jlayton@kernel.org wrote: > From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> > > Just check and advance the data errseq_t in struct file before > before returning from fsync on normal files. Internal filemap_* > callers are left as-is. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Looks ok, Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> --D > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > index 5fb5a0958a14..6600b264b0b6 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ xfs_file_fsync( > > trace_xfs_file_fsync(ip); > > - error = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, start, end); > + error = file_write_and_wait_range(file, start, end); > if (error) > return error; > > -- > 2.13.0 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 07:12 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Nice and simple, this looks great! > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Thanks! I think this turned out to be a lot cleaner too. For filesystems that use filemap_write_and_wait_range today this now becomes a pretty straight conversion to file_write_and_wait_range -- one liner patches for the most part. I've started rolling patches to do that, but now I'm wondering... Should I aim to do that with an individual patch for each fs, or is it better to do a swath of them all at once in a single patch here?
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:45:54PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Should I aim to do that with an individual patch for each fs, or is it > better to do a swath of them all at once in a single patch here? I'd be perfectly happy with one big patch for all the trivial conversions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c index 5fb5a0958a14..6600b264b0b6 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ xfs_file_fsync( trace_xfs_file_fsync(ip); - error = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, start, end); + error = file_write_and_wait_range(file, start, end); if (error) return error;