> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:04:32PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: > > IMHO, If our goal is to solve the problem of xfstests, we can use only > > "ext4: fix ZERO_RANGE test failure in data journalling" patch without > > i_write_mutex patch. And we can add lock for fallocate on next kernel > > after checking with sufficient time. > > I thought this patch required i_write_mutex to avoid a race where > another thread modifies an inode while filemap_write_and_wait_range() > is running? Yes, Right. > > I agree that we could drop the i_write_mutex and add a call to > ext4_force_commit() which should make the xfstest failure rarer, but > the race would still be there, yes? Yes, It is there but as Lukas said it is not critical than a possible locking overhead. So, IMHO this is not something which needs urgent attention and can be tackled properly after checking unclear performance measurement on high-end server. Thanks. > > - Ted -- 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
