[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220406171715.35euuzocoe4ljepe@quack3.lan>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 19:17:15 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jack@...e.cz, yukuai3@...wei.com,
yebin10@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: convert symlink external data block mapping to
bdev
On Wed 06-04-22 16:45:03, Zhang Yi wrote:
> Symlink's external data block is one kind of metadata block, and now
> that almost all ext4 metadata block's page cache (e.g. directory blocks,
> quota blocks...) belongs to bdev backing inode except the symlink. It
> is essentially worked in data=journal mode like other regular file's
> data block because probably in order to make it simple for generic VFS
> code handling symlinks or some other historical reasons, but the logic
> of creating external data block in ext4_symlink() is complicated. and it
> also make things confused if user do not want to let the filesystem
> worked in data=journal mode. This patch convert the final exceptional
> case and make things clean, move the mapping of the symlink's external
> data block to bdev like any other metadata block does.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
> ---
> This RFC patch follow the talking of whether if we could unify the
> journal mode of ext4 metadata blocks[1], it stop using the data=journal
> mode for the final exception case of symlink's external data block. Any
> comments are welcome, thanks.
>
> [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20220321151141.hypnhr6o4vng2sa6@quack3.lan/T/#m84b942a6bb838ba60ae8afd906ebbb987a577488
>
> fs/ext4/inode.c | 9 +---
> fs/ext4/namei.c | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> fs/ext4/symlink.c | 44 ++++++++++++++---
> 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)
Hum, we don't save on code but I'd say the result is somewhat more
standard. So I guess this makes some sense. Let's see what Ted thinks...
Otherwise I've found just one small bug below.
> @@ -3270,26 +3296,8 @@ static int ext4_symlink(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir,
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> - if ((disk_link.len > EXT4_N_BLOCKS * 4)) {
> - /*
> - * For non-fast symlinks, we just allocate inode and put it on
> - * orphan list in the first transaction => we need bitmap,
> - * group descriptor, sb, inode block, quota blocks, and
> - * possibly selinux xattr blocks.
> - */
> - credits = 4 + EXT4_MAXQUOTAS_INIT_BLOCKS(dir->i_sb) +
> - EXT4_XATTR_TRANS_BLOCKS;
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * Fast symlink. We have to add entry to directory
> - * (EXT4_DATA_TRANS_BLOCKS + EXT4_INDEX_EXTRA_TRANS_BLOCKS),
> - * allocate new inode (bitmap, group descriptor, inode block,
> - * quota blocks, sb is already counted in previous macros).
> - */
> - credits = EXT4_DATA_TRANS_BLOCKS(dir->i_sb) +
> - EXT4_INDEX_EXTRA_TRANS_BLOCKS + 3;
> - }
> -
> + credits = EXT4_DATA_TRANS_BLOCKS(dir->i_sb) +
> + EXT4_INDEX_EXTRA_TRANS_BLOCKS + 3;
This does not seem like enough credits - we may need to allocate inode, add
entry to directory, allocate & initialize symlink block. So I think you
need to add 4 for block allocation + init in case of non-fast symlink. And
please keep the comment explaining what is actually counted in the number
of credits...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists