[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87obx5i8r8.fsf@dmbot.sw.ru>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:57:31 +0400
From: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ext4: Do not clear EOFBLOCKS_FL too soon
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:18:34 -0400, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 01:08:56AM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > ext4_ext_insert_extent() may fail due to number of reasons (ENOSPC)
> > so let's update eof flag only after extent was successfully inserted.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
>
> The problem with this patch is that if the check_eofblocks_fl() fails,
> the patch jumps to out: and doesn't undo the block allocation and
> extent tree manipulation.
check_eofblocks_fl may fail only due to ext4_journal_get_write_access
or ext4_mark_iloc_dirty, this means that something serious happen,
so it is very unlikely we can undo block allocation.
>
> I suspect a better way of solving this problem is to keep the existing
> order, but to save the state of eofblocks flag, and if
> ext4_ext_insert_extent() fails, to restore the state of the eofblocks
> flag before jumping to the exit routine.
Yes. This is definitely looks better, will redo.
>
> - 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
--
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