[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTim3Bg08cC9Cn+JWj-73Z5_AAUF6xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:50:06 +0800
From: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, damien@...ssart.com,
feng.tang@...el.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 32972] New: EXT4 causes corrupt BitTorrent downloads
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:30:13PM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
>> So the right code should be:
>>
>> bh->b_state = (bh->b_state & ~EXT4_MAP_FLAGS) | map.m_flags;
>> map_bh(bh, inode->i_sb, map.m_pblk);
>> if (buffer_unwritten(bh)) {
>> /* A delayed write to unwritten bh should be marked
>> * new and mapped. Mapped ensures that we don't do
>> * get_block multiple times when we write to the same
>> * offset and new ensures that we do proper zero out
>> * for partial write.
>> */
>> set_buffer_new(bh);
>> }
>
> Actually, I'm much more comfortable backing out commit 6de9843da
> entirely. The above is *not* equivalent to what we had before ---
> consider the case where ext4_map_blocks returns !EXT4_MAP_MAPPED &&
> !EXT4_MAP_UNWRITTEN.
>
> I don't *think* this should happen in the case where ext4_map_blocks
> returns a value > 0, but the fact that it's not obvious, means I'd
> much rather keep things the way that they are. It's not like dropping
> the set_buffer_mapped(bh) was saving anything measurable anyway....
Agree. this way, the comment for unwritten case is also much clearer.
Yongqiang
>
> - Ted
>
--
Best Wishes
Yongqiang Yang
--
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