lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] vfs pile 3
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 12:04:55PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 05:01:15PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > You know, I'm in the middle of dealing with one such TODO. Yours, as it
> > were. From six years ago. kernel_thread() unexporting. TODO comments
> > of any form are routinely shat upon and ignored, especially when shuffled
> > away into less read parts of the tree... ;-/
> >
> > I'd rather see it done fs-by-fs. Starting with something reasonably easy
> > to test - minixfs would do nicely. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for
> > burying ->truncate(); what I'm worried about is that we'll end up burying
> > the warning about the reasons why vmtruncate() was a bad idea, leaving the
> > functionality exactly as it used to be...
>
> As mentioned I agree with the concern in principle. Let's start by
> taking Marco's patches for filesystems that use vmtruncate but don't
> actually implement ->truncate. There's a few I remember offhand, e.g.
> procfs and ufs right now. Then we can do the actual work required ones
> piece by piece.

Umm... That would be what, procfs? Frankly, I'm not sure that ATTR_SIZE for
procfs actually should not be silently ignored. ->i_size there is completely
synthetic - it's not as if truncation would actually change the contents.

And ufs situation is quite different - there vmtruncate() is used only on the
->write_begin() side. ->setattr() is already vmtruncate-free. What's needed
there is an analog of e.g. ext2_write_failed().


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-13 19:41    [W:0.067 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site