lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND v5] fat: editions to support fat_fallocate
From
2013/6/19, OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>:
> Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>If above is correct, right implement to change get_block().
>> Now when we try to write in the fallocated region ( with keep size) in
>> the fat_write_begin when it is called first time it checks that the
>> mismatch is present between the mmu_private and mmu_actual , and hence
>> zero out the region ; since buffer_new is not set for fallocated
>> region by fat_get_block , we explicitly zero out the lseeked region
>> using "fat_zero_falloc_area" and normal write occurs beyond that , and
>> i_size is updated accordingly , and as such there is no need to move
>> the code to fat_get_block .
>
> OK. So, like I said, you *changed* the behavior of get_block() via
> fallocate() change, right? (I think, now, you noticed fat_get_block()
> was changed.) Since you changed the behavior of get_block(), you had to
> hack write_begin(). (IMO, that patch is dirty hack to fix write_begin()
> path only)
>
> Likewise, you have to prove all callers of get_block() must work
> collectedly with that change.
>
Hi OGAWA.
> What happen on direct I/O, bmap ioctl, etc.? Well, anyway, please fix
> the root cause of change of behavior.
Good point!
Yes, I didn't consider direct I/O and bmap yet. Sure, I will fix it.
Thanks for review :)
>
> Thanks.
> --
> OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-20 09:01    [W:0.135 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site