[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130128153836.GH22711@thunk.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:38:36 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] ext4: Disable merging of uninitialized extents
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:02:55PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> Actually this patch consists of two peaces
> 1) disable merging of uninitialized extents. (1 line change) I'm
> absolutely agree with it.
To be clear, that's this patch chunk (one line change not including
comments :-), right?
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -1579,11 +1576,13 @@ int
ext4_can_extents_be_merged(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_extent *ex1,
struct ext4_extent *ex2)
{
/*
- * Make sure that either both extents are uninitialized, or
- * both are _not_.
+ * Make sure that both extents are initialized. We don't merge
+ * uninitialized extents so that we can be sure that end_io code has
+ * the extent that was written properly split out and conversion to
+ * initialized is trivial.
*/
- if (ext4_ext_is_uninitialized(ex1) ^ ext4_ext_is_uninitialized(ex2))
+ if (ext4_ext_is_uninitialized(ex1) || ext4_ext_is_uninitialized(ex2))
return 0;
The one thing I'm a bit worried about is how much worse will extent
fragmentation be once we do this, but it's clear we need to strive for
correctness first.
- 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