From e8ea1759138d4279869f52bfb7dca8f02f8ccfe5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Artem Bityutskiy Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:40:23 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] UBIFS: do not use WB_SYNC_HOLD WB_SYNC_HOLD is going to be zapped so we should not use it. Use %WB_SYNC_NONE instead. Here is what akpm said: "I think I'll just switch that to WB_SYNC_NONE. The `wait==0' mode is just an advisory thing to help the fs shove lots of data into the queues. If some gets missed then it'll be picked up on the second ->sync_fs call, with wait==1." Thanks to Randy Dunlap for catching this. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy Cc: Nick Piggin Cc: Randy Dunlap Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/ubifs/super.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/ubifs/super.c b/fs/ubifs/super.c index 0d7564b95f8e..89556ee72518 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/super.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/super.c @@ -432,12 +432,19 @@ static int ubifs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait) int i, err; struct ubifs_info *c = sb->s_fs_info; struct writeback_control wbc = { - .sync_mode = wait ? WB_SYNC_ALL : WB_SYNC_HOLD, + .sync_mode = wait ? WB_SYNC_ALL : WB_SYNC_NONE, .range_start = 0, .range_end = LLONG_MAX, .nr_to_write = LONG_MAX, }; + /* + * Note by akpm about WB_SYNC_NONE used above: zero @wait is just an + * advisory thing to help the file system shove lots of data into the + * queues. If some gets missed then it'll be picked up on the second + * '->sync_fs()' call, with non-zero @wait. + */ + if (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY) return 0;