On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:57, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 08:22:43PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > That would work, but I don't like how this leaves us with a vfs function > > that updates i_size without bothering to dirty the inode very much. > > This isn't a VFS function, it is a helper library. Well, let's call it that if this suits you better. > > How about if we move the __generic_write_end call into the page_done > > callback and leave special handling to the filesystem code if needed > > instead? The below patch seems to work for gfs2. > > That seems way more complicated. I'd much rather go with something > like may patch plus maybe a big fat comment explaining that persisting > the size update is the file systems job. Note that a lot of the modern > file systems don't use the VFS inode tracking for that, besides XFS > that includes at least btrfs and ocfs2 as well. Andreas
