[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKYAXd80BFUMGYrON22Ui4xSMaxNJaHD1ss8bMVgdQqC4xG48A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:53:26 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
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 2/6] fat: add fat_fallocate operation
>> [...]
>>
>>> + /* Release unwritten fallocated blocks on inode eviction. */
>>> + if (MSDOS_I(inode)->mmu_private < MSDOS_I(inode)->i_disksize) {
>>> + int err;
>>> + fat_truncate_blocks(inode, MSDOS_I(inode)->mmu_private);
>>> + /* Fallocate results in updating the i_start/iogstart
>>> + * for the zero byte file. So, make it return to
>>> + * original state during evict and commit it
>>> + * synchrnously to avoid any corruption on the next
>>> + * access to the cluster chain for the file.
>>> + */
>>> + err = fat_sync_inode(inode);
>>
>> Ah, good catch. We have to update i_size. I was forgetting about this.
>> Well, sync inode unconditionally would not be good. Maybe, we better to
>> use __fat_write_inode() with inode_needs_sync() or such.
> Okay, I will change it.
Hi OGAWA
When I checked more, we should wait till inode is sync. Because in the
eviction it will leave the inode/buffers being marked dirty.
Not waiting for it get sync over here. It will leave cluster chain
corrupted when remounting.
It mean we cannot use __fat_write_inode with inode_needs_sync() conditionally.
Thanks.
>
> 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