Hi,
At 09:47 06/06/30, Chris Mason wrote:
>Thanks for the patch. One problem is this will bump the transaction marker
>for atime updates too. I'd rather see the change done inside
>reiserfs_file_write.
I did not realize that an atime updates is also influenced.
>
>reiserfs_file_write already updates the transaction when blocks are allocated,
>but you're right that to be 100% correct we should cover the case when i_size
>increases but new blocks are not added. Was this the case you were trying to
>fix?
Yes, that's right.
So, I remade my patch as follows.
I tested this patch and confirmed that the kernel with this patch work well.
Signed-off-by :Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff -Nru linux-2.6.17/fs/reiserfs/file.c linux-2.6.17_fix/fs/reiserfs/file.c
--- linux-2.6.17/fs/reiserfs/file.c 2006-06-18 10:49:35.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-2.6.17_fix/fs/reiserfs/file.c 2006-06-30 10:09:35.000000000 +0900
@@ -860,8 +860,10 @@
// this sets the proper flags for O_SYNC to trigger a commit
mark_inode_dirty(inode);
reiserfs_write_unlock(inode->i_sb);
- } else
+ } else {
+ reiserfs_update_inode_transaction(inode);
mark_inode_dirty(inode);
+ }
sd_update = 1;
}
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
