Commit d98bb9c2 authored by Valdis Klētnieks's avatar Valdis Klētnieks Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: exfat: explain the fs_sync() issue in TODO

We've seen several incorrect patches for fs_sync() calls in the exfat driver.
Add code to the TODO that explains this isn't just a delete code and refactor,
but that actual analysis of when the filesystem should be flushed to disk
needs to be done.
Signed-off-by: default avatarValdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/9837.1570042895@turing-policeSigned-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
parent 8789f13d
......@@ -3,6 +3,15 @@ same for ffsWriteFile.
exfat_core.c - fs_sync(sb,0) all over the place looks fishy as hell.
There's only one place that calls it with a non-zero argument.
Randomly removing fs_sync() calls is *not* the right answer, especially
if the removal then leaves a call to fs_set_vol_flags(VOL_CLEAN), as that
says the file system is clean and synced when we *know* it isn't.
The proper fix here is to go through and actually analyze how DELAYED_SYNC
should work, and any time we're setting VOL_CLEAN, ensure the file system
has in fact been synced to disk. In other words, changing the 'false' to
'true' is probably more correct. Also, it's likely that the one current
place where it actually does an bdev_sync isn't sufficient in the DELAYED_SYNC
case.
ffsTruncateFile - if (old_size <= new_size) {
That doesn't look right. How did it ever work? Are they relying on lazy
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment