[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703051333140.3998@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:43:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Will Trives <will@...vescon.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: nobh_truncate_page() fix
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>
> This fixes a regression caused by 22c8ca78f20724676b6006232bf06cc3e9299539.
>
> nobh_prepare_write() no longer marks the page uptodate, so
> nobh_truncate_page() needs to do it.
I'm not convinced...
If the page wasn't up-to-date from before, it's *not* necessarily
up-to-date after the truncate either! So why do we have that at all?
The same comment is true of "nobh_commit_write()" (which _does_ have the
SetPageUptodate() there).
So I have three questions:
- why is that valid in the first place (the page is *not* guaranteed to
be up-to-date as far as I can see!)
- why is it valid to do in "nobh_commit_write()"
- why doesn't "nobh_truncate_page()"
(a) call nobh_prepare_write() through an indirect pointer?
(b) call nobh_commit_write() at all? (Yeah, I realize it's because
of brokenness with i_size, so this is more of a "those
functions should be factored out properly" statement rather
than a question.
IOW, I'm sure your patch _fixes_ something, but no, it's certainly not
obvious to me. A few added comments would be good.. Why is it ok to do
this on a page that wasn't up-to-date before (since obviously, if it *was*
up-to-date, it's pointless).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists