Hi,
On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:23 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
> ^^remount
>
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > uncondition
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:28:23PM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>
> I guess the same is true for other file systems which are mounted ro
> too. So maybe a check for MS_RDONLY before doing the sync in those
> cases?
My original patch moved the sync_filesystem into the check for
MS_RDONLY in the
On Thu 13-03-14 10:20:56, Ted Tso wrote:
> Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
^^remount
> file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> unconditional syncfs(). This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> documen
Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
unconditional syncfs(). This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
except in the case where the fil
Hi,
On 03/13/2014 05:13 PM, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Gu,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Gu Zheng [mailto:guz.f...@cn.fujitsu.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 6:44 PM
>> To: Kim
>> Cc: linux-kernel; f2fs
>> Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 3/5] f2fs: format segment_info's show for better
>> le
Hi Gu,
> -Original Message-
> From: Gu Zheng [mailto:guz.f...@cn.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 6:44 PM
> To: Kim
> Cc: linux-kernel; f2fs
> Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 3/5] f2fs: format segment_info's show for better
> legibility
>
> The original segment_info's show is a bit
