| /openbmc/linux/drivers/char/ |
| H A D | ps3flash.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/coda/ |
| H A D | coda_int.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | file.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/jfs/ |
| H A D | jfs_inode.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | file.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/ntfs/ |
| H A D | dir.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | file.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/hpfs/ |
| H A D | hpfs_fn.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | file.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/reiserfs/ |
| H A D | dir.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | file.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/affs/ |
| H A D | affs.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | file.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/9p/ |
| H A D | v9fs_vfs.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/nilfs2/ |
| H A D | file.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | nilfs.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/jffs2/ |
| H A D | os-linux.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | file.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/drivers/mtd/ubi/ |
| H A D | cdev.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/ |
| H A D | bad_inode.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/ext4/ |
| H A D | fsync.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/ext2/ |
| H A D | ext2.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | file.c | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/hfsplus/ |
| H A D | hfsplus_fs.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/fat/ |
| H A D | fat.h | 02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
02c24a82 Sat Jul 16 19:44:56 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers
Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called
in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and
the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some
file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and
ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make
sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each
individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there.
Thanks,
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|