On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:11:17 +1000
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx,
> achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12 v2] xfs: pass LLONG_MAX to
> truncate_inode_pages_range
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 03:19:07PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > Currently we're passing -1 to truncate_inode_pages_range() which is
> > actually really confusing since the argument is signed so we do not get
> > "huge" number as one would expect, but rather just -1. To make things
> > clearer and easier for truncate_inode_pages_range() just pass LLONG_MAX
> > since it is actually what was intended anyway.
> >
> > It also makes thing easier for allowing truncate_inode_pages_range() to
> > handle non page aligned regions. Moreover letting the lend argument to
> > be negative might actually hide some bugs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_fs_subr.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_fs_subr.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_fs_subr.c
> > index 652b875..6e9b052 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_fs_subr.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_fs_subr.c
> > @@ -34,7 +34,8 @@ xfs_tosspages(
> > {
> > /* can't toss partial tail pages, so mask them out */
> > last &= ~(PAGE_SIZE - 1);
> > - truncate_inode_pages_range(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping, first, last - 1);
> > + truncate_inode_pages_range(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping, first,
> > + last == -1 ? LLONG_MAX : last);
>
> The last paramter changed from (last -1) to last. so if we pass in
> last = 16384, we now truncate to 16384 (first byte of page index 5)
> instead of 16383 (last byte of page index 4). That's a change of
> behaviour and a potential off-by one error, right?
Right, this could potentially cause off-by-one errors, but as it is
now I do not think this could happen. The only place where it is
used with a proper range is XFS_IOC_ZERO_RANGE and you're going to
convert the whole range to unwritten anyway. But it was unintended
and I\ll fix it.
>
> > @@ -53,7 +54,8 @@ xfs_flushinval_pages(
> > ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(mapping, first,
> > last == -1 ? LLONG_MAX : last);
> > if (!ret)
> > - truncate_inode_pages_range(mapping, first, last);
> > + truncate_inode_pages_range(mapping, first,
> > + last == -1 ? LLONG_MAX : last);
>
> Given this is also done immediately above in the function, perhaps
> this should be done before anything:
>
> if (last == -1)
> last = LLONG_MAX;
>
> and the parameter simply passed to the two functions without the
> conditional logic?
Yes, it makes sense to do this, I'll change it in the next
iteration.
Thanks for the review Dave.
-Lukas
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
>
--
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
