On 2021/7/16 18:08, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 16-07-21 11:56:06, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> On 2021/7/15 20:08, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Thu 15-07-21 09:54:51, Zhang Yi wrote:
>>>> Now that the inline_data file write end procedure are falled into the
>>>> common write end functions, it is not clear. Factor them out and do
>>>> some cleanup. This patch also drop ext4_da_write_inline_data_end()
>>>> and switch to use ext4_write_inline_data_end() instead because we also
>>>> need to do the same error processing if we failed to write data into
>>>> inline entry.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Just two small comments below.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inline.c b/fs/ext4/inline.c
>>>> index 28b666f25ac2..3d227b32b21c 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/ext4/inline.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/inline.c
>>> ...
>>>> +out:
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If we have allocated more blocks and copied less. We will have
>>>> + * blocks allocated outside inode->i_size, so truncate them.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (pos + len > inode->i_size && ext4_can_truncate(inode))
>>>> + ext4_orphan_add(handle, inode);
>>>
>>> I don't think we need this error handling here. For inline data we never
>>> allocate any blocks so shorter writes don't need any cleanup.
>>>
>>>> - return copied;
>>>> + ret2 = ext4_journal_stop(handle);
>>>> + if (!ret)
>>>> + ret = ret2;
>>>> + if (pos + len > inode->i_size) {
>>>> + ext4_truncate_failed_write(inode);
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If truncate failed early the inode might still be
>>>> + * on the orphan list; we need to make sure the inode
>>>> + * is removed from the orphan list in that case.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (inode->i_nlink)
>>>> + ext4_orphan_del(NULL, inode);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> And this can go away as well...
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, but if we don't call ext4_truncate_failed_write()->..->
>> ext4_inline_data_truncate(), it will lead to incorrect larger i_inline_size
>> and data entry. Although it seems harmless (i_size can prevent read zero
>> data), I think it's better to restore the data entry(the comments need
>> change later), or else it will occupy more xattr space. What do you think ?
>
> Good point. I've found this out last time when I was reviewing your patches
> and then forgot again. So please leave the code there but fix this
> misleading comment:
>
> /*
> * If we have allocated more blocks and copied less. We will have
> * blocks allocated outside inode->i_size, so truncate them.
> */
>
> Something like:
>
> /*
> * If we didn't copy as much data as expected, we need to trim back size of
> * xattr containing inline data.
> */
>
OK.
Thanks,
Yi.
