On 2015/08/05 12:10, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 11:52:36AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
On 2015/08/05 10:57, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:39:35AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Tsutomu Itoh wrote on 2015/08/05 10:26 +0900:
On 2015/08/05 10:08, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+# As the reserved space freeing happens at commit_transaction time,
+# without a transaction commit, no reserved space needs freeing and
+# won't trigger the bug.
+sync
Isn't '$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG filesystem sync' better instead of 'sync'?
Thanks,
Tsutomu
Hi, Tsutomu-san,
Yes, I did use such method before, but Dave said it's better to use
unified interface to sync a filesystem other than the specialized
one.
So I still use sync as Dave said.
Mainly because "sync" is what users will use to make sure their data
is safe. filesystem specific tools have a habit of doing "special
stuff" to sync a filesystem, so it may not reflect the way users
expect the system to behaviour when they run sync.
The other option is this:
_syncfs()
{
mntpt=$1
$XFS_IO_PROG -c syncfs $mntpt
}
_sync_test()
{
_syncfs $TEST_DIR
}
_sync_scratch()
{
_syncfs $SCRATCH_MNT
}
which only runs sync on the filesystem that needs syncing (via the
syncfs() syscall)
I think that syncfs is better instead of sync because the syncing of
the specified filesystem is necessary.
sync guarantees that. IOWs, there's no difference between sync and
syncfs for the persepctive of this test and so the test does not
need really need changing.
I agree that sync and syncfs is not different for this test.
However, sync is syncing of all filesystems, and, syncfs is syncing
of the specified filesystem only.
Therefor, I think that it is better to use sync and syncfs properly
according to the necessity.
Thanks,
Tsutomu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
