[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANFS6bYm_yCLG2kKfn8wYBJ4bO+Z+2+R-gHQ6dTwiP9Ut3yy5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:10:24 +0900
From: Hyunchul Lee <hyc.lee@...il.com>
To: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] exfat: call sync_filesystem for read-only remount
Hi Namjae,
2020년 6월 15일 (월) 오전 9:14, Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>님이 작성:
>
> Hi Hyunchul,
> > We need to commit dirty metadata and pages to disk before remounting exfat as read-only.
> >
> > This fixes a failure in xfstests generic/452
> Could you please elaborate more the reason why generic/452 in xfstests failed ?
xfstests generic/452 does the following.
cp /bin/ls <exfat>/
mount -o remount,ro <exfat>
the <exfat>/ls file is corrupted, because while exfat is remounted as read-only,
exfat doesn't have a chance to commit metadata and vfs invalidates page
caches in a block device.
I will put this explanation in a commit message.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hyunchul Lee <hyc.lee@...il.com>
> > ---
> > fs/exfat/super.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/exfat/super.c b/fs/exfat/super.c index e650e65536f8..61c6cf240c19 100644
> > --- a/fs/exfat/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/exfat/super.c
> > @@ -693,10 +693,29 @@ static void exfat_free(struct fs_context *fc)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static int exfat_reconfigure(struct fs_context *fc) {
> > + struct super_block *sb = fc->root->d_sb;
> > + int ret;
> int ret = 0;
> > + bool new_rdonly;
> > +
> > + new_rdonly = fc->sb_flags & SB_RDONLY;
> > + if (new_rdonly != sb_rdonly(sb)) {
> If you modify it like this, would not we need new_rdonly?
> if (fc->sb_flags & SB_RDONLY && !sb_rdonly(sb))
>
This condition means that mount options are changed from "rw" to "ro",
or "ro" to "rw".
> > + if (new_rdonly) {
And this condition means these options are changed from "rw" to "ro".
It seems better to change two conditions to the one you suggested, or
remove those. because sync_filesystem returns 0 when the filesystem is
mounted as read-only.
> > + /* volume flag will be updated in exfat_sync_fs */
> > + ret = sync_filesystem(sb);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> I think that this ret check can be removed by using return ret; below ?
Okay, I will apply this.
Thank you for your comments!
> > + }
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > static const struct fs_context_operations exfat_context_ops = {
> > .parse_param = exfat_parse_param,
> > .get_tree = exfat_get_tree,
> > .free = exfat_free,
> > + .reconfigure = exfat_reconfigure,
> > };
> >
> > static int exfat_init_fs_context(struct fs_context *fc)
> > --
> > 2.17.1
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists