[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090827111403.GA14240@duck.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:14:03 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Buffer state bits
On Wed 26-08-09 22:27:00, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > BH_Dirty
> > - Ideally, this bit should mean "buffer has data that have to be
> > written". But it is not quite true. The problem happens when
> > someone calls set_page_dirty() on the page to which buffers are
> > attached or similarly when buffers are attached to a dirty
> > page. Then all buffers attached to the page are marked dirty -
> > even those that are beyond end of file which obviously should not
> > be written.
> >
> > When buffer is dirty, the page has to be dirty as well (mark
> > buffer dirty takes care of that). It is not necessarily the other
> > way around and buffer dirty bit is what ultimately decides whether
> > the buffer goes to disk or not.
>
> That last sentence implies page can be dirty while a buffer in the
> page is not dirty.
Yes, that happens.
> In that case, do buffers beyond the end of file need to be set dirty
> by set_page_dirty()? If yes, perhaps the text could explain why.
No, they need not. But it's racy to check i_size in set_page_dirty
because we don't hold i_mutex... I'll add some explanation to the
paragraph.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists