On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 03:05:41PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:05:40PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c > > index 3e0851e..353b1fd 100644 > > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c > > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c > > @@ -944,6 +944,7 @@ static struct inode *ext4_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb) > > memset(&ei->i_cached_extent, 0, sizeof(struct ext4_ext_cache)); > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ei->i_prealloc_list); > > spin_lock_init(&ei->i_prealloc_lock); > > + ext4_es_init_tree(&ei->i_es_tree); > > ei->i_reserved_data_blocks = 0; > > ei->i_reserved_meta_blocks = 0; > > ei->i_allocated_meta_blocks = 0; > > This patch hunk immediately me ask, "so when does the extent_status > tree get freed?" And I believe the answer is that currently, since it > only tracks delayed extents (and we're not using it for locking > purposes), by the time we have evicted the inode and are ready to call > ext4_clear_inode(), we should have released all of the nodes in the > ext4_es_tree. Is that correct? > > If so, we might want to think about adding a sanity check to make sure > that by the time we are done with the inode in ext4_evict_inode() > (after we have forced writeback), the ext4_es_tree is empty. Agreed? Hi Ted, Today I revise this patch again, and I find extent_status_tree is freed in ext4_clear_inode(). So maybe I don't think that we need to check this tree to be freed in ext4_evict_inode(). This change is in this patch '[RFC][PATCH 4/8 v2] ext4: let ext4 maintain extent status tree'. What's your opinion? Regards, Zheng -- 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
