On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:28:23PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > However depending on which patch lands first one may need a > > re-basing. Will conflict with this- > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=157613016931238&w=2 > > Yes, but the conflict is minor and trivial to resolve. > Is this the correct resolution? --- a/fs/ext4/file.c +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c @@ -447,6 +447,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from) struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp); loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos; size_t count = iov_iter_count(from); + const struct iomap_ops *iomap_ops = &ext4_iomap_ops; bool extend = false, unaligned_io = false; bool ilock_shared = true; @@ -526,7 +527,9 @@ static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from) ext4_journal_stop(handle); } - ret = iomap_dio_rw(iocb, from, &ext4_iomap_ops, &ext4_dio_write_ops, + if (ilock_shared) + iomap_ops = &ext4_iomap_overwrite_ops; + ret = iomap_dio_rw(iocb, from, iomap_ops, &ext4_dio_write_ops, is_sync_kiocb(iocb) || unaligned_io || extend); if (extend) - Ted
