Hi Chao,
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 08:25:33PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 2019/8/12 5:35, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > When an error (e.g. ENOSPC) occurs during f2fs_write_begin() when called
> > from f2fs_write_merkle_tree_block(), skip truncating the file. i_size
> > is not meaningful in this case, and the truncation is handled by
> > f2fs_end_enable_verity() instead.
> >
> > Fixes: 60d7bf0f790f ("f2fs: add fs-verity support")
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > index 3f525f8a3a5fa..00b03fb87bd9b 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > @@ -2476,7 +2476,7 @@ static void f2fs_write_failed(struct address_space *mapping, loff_t to)
> > struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> > loff_t i_size = i_size_read(inode);
> >
> > - if (to > i_size) {
>
> Maybe adding one single line comment to mention that it's redundant/unnecessary
> truncation here is better, if I didn't misunderstand this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> > + if (to > i_size && !f2fs_verity_in_progress(inode)) {
> > down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_gc_rwsem[WRITE]);
> > down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_mmap_sem);
> >
Do you mean add a comment instead of the !f2fs_verity_in_progress() check, or in
addition to it? ->write_begin(), ->writepages(), and ->write_end() are all
supposed to ignore i_size when verity is in progress, so I don't think this
particular part should be different, even if technically it's still correct to
truncate twice. Also, ext4 needs this check in its ->write_begin() for locking
reasons; we should keep f2fs similar.
How about having both a comment and the check, like:
/* In the fs-verity case, f2fs_end_enable_verity() does the truncate */
if (to > i_size && !f2fs_verity_in_progress(inode)) {
- Eric
