On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote: > Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:41:41 -0700 (PDT) > From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, > Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12 v2] Revert "ext4: fix fsx truncate failure" > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:42:09 -0400 > > > From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > > To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > > > achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12 v2] Revert "ext4: fix fsx truncate failure" > > > > > > Hi Lukas, > > > > > > This patch set has changes to the VFS, XFS, and ext4, and there are > > > cross dependencies between them. Is there any way you can disentagle > > > the dependencies between the patches so we don't need to worry about > > > how these get pulled in during the merge window? > > > > > > I suppose could try to get the XFS folks to sign off with my carrying > > > this patch in the ext4 tree, since the bulk of the changes are > > > ext4-related, but it is a bit of a complication. > > > > > > - Ted > > > > Hi Ted, > > > > there is no VFS change, MM is probably what you've had in mind ? So > > the only reason why there are xfs, mm and tmpfs changes is that I am > > changing truncate_partial_page() and a small side effect is changed > > calling conventions. > > truncate_partial_page() is static inline to mm/truncate.c: > was that a typo, or are you changing that too and I missed it? Sorry, I meant truncate_inode_pages_range(). > > Sorry, but I find your changes of the infinity convention from -1 to > LLONG_MAX just gratuitous and confusing (and error prone if we ever > have to backport portions to earlier stable releases). > > It grieves me enough that unmap_mapping_range() has always had quite > a different convention from truncate_inode_pages_range(). You're now > proposing to give truncate_inode_pages_range() yet another convention > different from invalidate_inode_pages2_range() and > truncate_pagecache_range()? > > At cost of having to make xfs and tmpfs (well, actually it's the > tiny !SHMEM ramfs case you're changing there in 03/12) dependent > on synchronizing with your other changes? > > I can see that when I converted shmem_truncate_range() (later extended > to shmem_undo_range()) to partial_start and partial_end, I did put in > an ugly couple of lines > if (lend == -1) > end = -1; /* unsigned, so actually very big */ > but I think it's better there than "lend == -1 ? LLONG_MAX : lend;" > ugliness spread around in the filesystems. I find the -1 convention rather confusing and the above, as you said, quite ugly. I seemed to me much cleaner to just send what we actually want, which is LLONG_MAX. You're right that "lend == -1 ? LLONG_MAX : lend;" is not pretty, but it at least gives the file systems reason to fix that and do not use -1. It is bad enough that zero_user_segment() and friends has absolutely weird convention where instead of "end" you actually expect "end + 1", whereas zero_user() actually uses start + size instead. Things like that, plus the -1, makes it easy to confuse (at least for me). > > I don't see any upside: please, could you just drop those changes, > so that then it comes down to synchronizing ext4 with mm/truncate.c? The reason of this change to teach truncate_inode_pages_range() to handle non page aligned ranges which we then can make use of in ext4. > > > > > We can push patches 3, 4, 5 and 6 through the mm tree. But we'll > > have to make sure that it will land before ext4 changes since I am > > using the new truncate_partial_page() behaviour in ext4. Will that > > be possible ? > > > > Hugh ? > > I'd like patchs 3, 4 and 5 to vanish. As to 6 (perhaps it won't be > 6 after that!), I want to work through that one myself (I'll try this > evening): it looked over-complicated to me, and I'd rather go back to > what I worked out for partial_end in shmem_truncate_range(). The code in the shmem_undo_range() is really similar, except it is not able to handle offset of LLONG_MAX, or actually even the last page with this offset, but truncate_inode_pages_range() obviously does. But again, there is the confusion with the "end" being "end + 1" which seems odd. > > Then yes, if we're all happy with the result of that, it will be best > for Ted to take even the mm/truncate.c patch into his ext4 branch, > made visible in linux-next before the merge window. > > We're running out of time: I'll make every effort to get back to you > on 6 after I've tested late today. Great, thanks Hugh. -Lukas > > Hugh > -- 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
