[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <cover.1642044249.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:56:23 +0530
From: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, tytso@....edu,
Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>,
Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/6] ext4/jbd2: inline_data fixes and some cleanups
Hellos,
Patch[1]: fixes BUG_ON with inline_data which was reported [1] with generic/475.
Patch[2]: is mostly cleanup found during code review of inline_data code.
Patch[3]: is a possible memory corruption fix in case of krealloc failure.
Patch[4-5]: Cleanups.
Patch[6]: Needs careful review. As it gets rid of t_handle_lock spinlock
in jbd2_journal_wait_updates(). From the code review I found it to be not
required. But let me know if I missed anything here.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20210527192418.GA2633@localhost.localdomain/
Ritesh Harjani (6):
ext4: Fix error handling in ext4_restore_inline_data()
ext4: Remove redundant max inline_size check in ext4_da_write_inline_data_begin()
ext4: Fix error handling in ext4_fc_record_modified_inode()
jbd2: Cleanup unused functions declarations from jbd2.h
jbd2: Refactor wait logic for transaction updates into a common function
jbd2: No need to use t_handle_lock in jbd2_journal_wait_updates
fs/ext4/fast_commit.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
fs/ext4/inline.c | 23 +++++++++-------
fs/jbd2/commit.c | 19 ++-----------
fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 24 ++--------------
include/linux/jbd2.h | 34 +++++++++++++++++------
5 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)
--
2.31.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists