Re: [PATCH 30/31] ext4: eliminate xattr entry e_hash recalculation for removes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I agree with moving ext4_xattr_rehash_entry() out of ext4_xattr_rehash().
> However how about just keeping ext4_xattr_rehash() in
> ext4_xattr_block_set() (so that you don't have to pass aditional argument
> to ext4_xattr_set_entry()) and calling ext4_xattr_rehash_entry() when
> i->value != NULL? That would seem easier and cleaner as well...

The is_block parameter is also used to decide whether block reserve
check should be performed:

@@ -1500,8 +1502,8 @@ static int ext4_xattr_set_entry(struct ext4_xattr_info *i,
                 * attribute block so that a long value does not occupy the
                 * whole space and prevent futher entries being added.
                 */
-               if (ext4_has_feature_ea_inode(inode->i_sb) && new_size &&
-                   (s->end - s->base) == i_blocksize(inode) &&
+               if (ext4_has_feature_ea_inode(inode->i_sb) &&
+                   new_size && is_block &&
                    (min_offs + old_size - new_size) <
                                        EXT4_XATTR_BLOCK_RESERVE(inode)) {
                        ret = -ENOSPC;

Because of that, I think moving ext4_xattr_rehash to caller makes it
bit more complicated. Let me know if you disagree.



[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux