On 12/26/19 10:47 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
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)
Yes, this looks correct to me.
Thanks
-ritesh
