Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:43:03 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fs: nobh_truncate_page() fix |
| |
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > This fixes a regression caused by 22c8ca78f20724676b6006232bf06cc3e9299539. > > nobh_prepare_write() no longer marks the page uptodate, so > nobh_truncate_page() needs to do it.
I'm not convinced...
If the page wasn't up-to-date from before, it's *not* necessarily up-to-date after the truncate either! So why do we have that at all?
The same comment is true of "nobh_commit_write()" (which _does_ have the SetPageUptodate() there).
So I have three questions:
- why is that valid in the first place (the page is *not* guaranteed to be up-to-date as far as I can see!)
- why is it valid to do in "nobh_commit_write()"
- why doesn't "nobh_truncate_page()" (a) call nobh_prepare_write() through an indirect pointer? (b) call nobh_commit_write() at all? (Yeah, I realize it's because of brokenness with i_size, so this is more of a "those functions should be factored out properly" statement rather than a question.
IOW, I'm sure your patch _fixes_ something, but no, it's certainly not obvious to me. A few added comments would be good.. Why is it ok to do this on a page that wasn't up-to-date before (since obviously, if it *was* up-to-date, it's pointless).
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |