lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: change the way of handling range.len in F2FS_IOC_SEC_TRIM_FILE
On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/10 11:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/10, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> >> From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> >>
> >> Changed the way of handling range.len of F2FS_IOC_SEC_TRIM_FILE.
> >> 1. Added -1 value support for range.len to signify the end of file.
> >> 2. If the end of the range passes over the end of file, it means until
> >> the end of file.
> >> 3. ignored the case of that range.len is zero to prevent the function
> >> from making end_addr zero and triggering different behaviour of
> >> the function.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> >> ---
> >> fs/f2fs/file.c | 16 +++++++---------
> >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> >> index 368c80f8e2a1..1c4601f99326 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> >> @@ -3813,21 +3813,19 @@ static int f2fs_sec_trim_file(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
> >> file_start_write(filp);
> >> inode_lock(inode);
> >>
> >> - if (f2fs_is_atomic_file(inode) || f2fs_compressed_file(inode)) {
> >> + if (f2fs_is_atomic_file(inode) || f2fs_compressed_file(inode) ||
> >> + range.start >= inode->i_size) {
> >> ret = -EINVAL;
> >> goto err;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (range.start >= inode->i_size) {
> >> - ret = -EINVAL;
> >> + if (range.len == 0)
> >> goto err;
> >> - }
> >>
> >> - if (inode->i_size - range.start < range.len) {
> >> - ret = -E2BIG;
> >> - goto err;
> >> - }
> >> - end_addr = range.start + range.len;
> >> + if (range.len == (u64)-1 || inode->i_size - range.start < range.len)
> >> + end_addr = inode->i_size;
>
> We can remove 'range.len == (u64)-1' condition since later condition can cover
> this?
>
> >
> > Hmm, what if there are blocks beyond i_size? Do we need to check i_blocks for
>
> The blocks beyond i_size will never be written, there won't be any valid message
> there, so we don't need to worry about that.

I don't think we have a way to guarantee the order of i_size and block
allocation in f2fs. See f2fs_write_begin and f2fs_write_end.

>
> Thanks,
>
> > ending criteria?
> >
> >> + else
> >> + end_addr = range.start + range.len;
> >>
> >> to_end = (end_addr == inode->i_size);
> >> if (!IS_ALIGNED(range.start, F2FS_BLKSIZE) ||
> >> --
> >> 2.27.0.383.g050319c2ae-goog
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> >> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > .
> >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-10 05:31    [W:0.060 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site