Re: [PATCH RESEND v5] fat: editions to support fat_fallocate

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>>If above is correct, right implement to change get_block().
> Now when we try to write in the fallocated region ( with keep size) in
> the fat_write_begin when it is called first time it checks that the
> mismatch is present between the mmu_private and mmu_actual , and hence
> zero out the region ; since buffer_new is not set for fallocated
> region by fat_get_block , we explicitly zero out the lseeked region
> using "fat_zero_falloc_area" and normal write occurs beyond that , and
> i_size is updated accordingly , and as such there is no need to move
> the code to fat_get_block .

OK. So, like I said, you *changed* the behavior of get_block() via
fallocate() change, right?  (I think, now, you noticed fat_get_block()
was changed.) Since you changed the behavior of get_block(), you had to
hack write_begin(). (IMO, that patch is dirty hack to fix write_begin()
path only)

Likewise, you have to prove all callers of get_block() must work
collectedly with that change.

What happen on direct I/O, bmap ioctl, etc.? Well, anyway, please fix
the root cause of change of behavior.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux