lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] ext3 data=guarded v7
    On Wed 29-04-09 16:53:44, Chris Mason wrote:
    ...
    > +static int ext3_guarded_write_end(struct file *file,
    > + struct address_space *mapping,
    > + loff_t pos, unsigned len, unsigned copied,
    > + struct page *page, void *fsdata)
    > +{
    > + handle_t *handle = ext3_journal_current_handle();
    > + struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
    > + unsigned from, to;
    > + int ret = 0, ret2;
    > +
    > + copied = block_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied,
    > + page, fsdata);
    > +
    > + from = pos & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1);
    > + to = from + copied;
    > + ret = walk_page_buffers(handle, page_buffers(page),
    > + from, to, NULL, journal_dirty_data_guarded_fn);
    > +
    > + /*
    > + * we only update the in-memory i_size. The disk i_size is done
    > + * by the end io handlers
    > + */
    > + if (ret == 0 && pos + copied > inode->i_size) {
    > + int must_log;
    > +
    > + /* updated i_size, but we may have raced with a
    > + * data=guarded end_io handler.
    > + *
    > + * All the guarded IO could have ended while i_size was still
    > + * small, and if we're just adding bytes into an existing block
    > + * in the file, we may not be adding a new guarded IO with this
    > + * write. So, do a check on the disk i_size and make sure it
    > + * is updated to the highest safe value.
    > + *
    > + * This may also be required if the
    > + * journal_dirty_data_guarded_fn chose to do an fully
    > + * ordered write of this buffer instead of a guarded
    > + * write.
    > + *
    > + * ext3_ordered_update_i_size tests inode->i_size, so we
    > + * make sure to update it with the ordered lock held.
    > + */
    > + ext3_ordered_lock(inode);
    > + i_size_write(inode, pos + copied);
    > + must_log = ext3_ordered_update_i_size(inode);
    > + ext3_ordered_unlock(inode);
    > +
    > + orphan_del_trans(inode, must_log > 0);
    > + }
    Didn't we agree that only "i_size_write" should remain from the above
    "if" after you changed journal_dirty_data_guarded_fn() function?

    Honza
    --
    Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
    SUSE Labs, CR


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-30 13:55    [W:0.022 / U:31.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site