[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110524210721.GD26055@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:07:21 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4:Teach ext4_ext_split to caculate extents
efficiently.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:30:57PM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
> @@ -982,20 +997,13 @@ static int ext4_ext_split(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
> err = -EIO;
> goto cleanup;
> }
> - while (path[i].p_idx <= EXT_MAX_INDEX(path[i].p_hdr)) {
> - ext_debug("%d: move %d:%llu in new index %llu\n", i,
> - le32_to_cpu(path[i].p_idx->ei_block),
> - ext4_idx_pblock(path[i].p_idx),
> - newblock);
> - /*memmove(++fidx, path[i].p_idx++,
> - sizeof(struct ext4_extent_idx));
> - neh->eh_entries++;
> - BUG_ON(neh->eh_entries > neh->eh_max);*/
> - path[i].p_idx++;
> - m++;
> - }
> + /* start copy indexes */
> + m = EXT_MAX_INDEX(path[i].p_hdr) - path[i].p_idx++;
> + ext_debug("cur 0x%p, last 0x%p\n", path[i].p_idx,
> + EXT_MAX_INDEX(path[i].p_hdr));
> + ext4_ext_show_move(inode, path, newblock, i);
> if (m) {
> - memmove(++fidx, path[i].p_idx - m,
> + memmove(++fidx, path[i].p_idx,
> sizeof(struct ext4_extent_idx) * m);
> le16_add_cpu(&neh->eh_entries, m);
> }
So the old code mutates path[i].p_idx, where as your new code doesn't.
The one thing that scares me is that ext4_ext_insert_index() is passed
&path[at], the function preferences path[at].p_idx.
Have you looked at this case?
- Ted
--
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