On 03/06/2012 11:37 AM, Allison Henderson wrote:
On 03/06/2012 09:44 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:11:37AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
you're right my patches solves this problem (as I wrote in the commit
description) just because we now use a different code paths, which do
not have this problem.
Ok, thanks. I'll look at them before the end of this week.
Just to be clear, have the problematic code paths been removed in your
patches, or are they not just being used in the problem scenario?
Basically, is there any other time where we might need the additional
logic which Allison added?
- Ted
Hi Ted,
I think we will be ok with out this patch if we pick up Lukas's patches.
Since the new implementation is seated inside ext4_ext_remove_space,
Lukas can take advantage of the existing code there.
In the current solution, we are seated inside map blocks, and then call
ext4_ext_rm_leaf from there. The bug in the current solution was that we
needed to free index blocks in the path to the extent we just removed,
but ext4_ext_remove_space will do this as it walks over the tree.
There are some things in the new implementation that Lukas and I are
looking at, but once we get it straightened out, I think it will be ok
to let this patch go. Thx!
Allison Henderson
forgot to reply to all. Resending to keep everyone posted :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
