[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y51rue2a.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:50:53 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
Amit Sahrawat <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] fat: add i_disksize to represent uninitialized size
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> writes:
> 2014-02-03, OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>:
>> Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> writes:
>>
>>> From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
>>>
>>> Add i_disksize to represent uninitialized allocated size.
>>> And mmu_private represent initialized allocated size.
>>
>> Don't we need to update ->i_disksize after cont_write_begin()?
> We don't need to update i_disksize after cont_write_begin.
> It is taken care by the fat_get_block after the allocation.
> For all write paths we align the mmu_private and i_disksize from
> fat_fill_inode and fat_get_block.
fat_fill_inode() just set i_disksize to i_size. So, it is not aligned by
cluster size or block size.
E.g. ->mmu_private = 500. Then, cont_write_begin() can set ->mmu_private
to 512 on some case. In this case, fat_get_block() will not be called,
because no new allocation.
If this is true, it would be possible to have ->mmu_private == 512 and
->i_disksize == 500.
I'm missing something?
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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