2014-02-04, OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> Don't we need to update ->i_disksize after cont_write_begin()? >>> We don't need to update i_disksize after cont_write_begin. >>> It is taken care by the fat_get_block after the allocation. >>> For all write paths we align the mmu_private and i_disksize from >>> fat_fill_inode and fat_get_block. >> >> fat_fill_inode() just set i_disksize to i_size. So, it is not aligned by >> cluster size or block size. >> >> E.g. ->mmu_private = 500. Then, cont_write_begin() can set ->mmu_private >> to 512 on some case. In this case, fat_get_block() will not be called, >> because no new allocation. >> >> If this is true, it would be possible to have ->mmu_private == 512 and >> ->i_disksize == 500. >> >> I'm missing something? > > BTW, even if above was right, I'm not checking whether updating > ->i_disksize after cont_write_begin() is right fix or not. I understand your concern. these can be mismatched. But, when checking your doubt, I can not find any side effect. I think that there is no issue regardless of alignment of two value, in the cont_write_begin. Could you please share any point I am missing ? If you suggest checking point or test method, I can check more and share the result. Thanks OGAWA. > -- > 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
