On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:20 AM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ---- 在 星期四, 2019-10-31 17:06:24 Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> 撰写 ---- > > > > I did not explain myself well. > > > > > > > > This should be enough IMO: > > > > > > > > @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_inode(struct > > > > ovl_copy_up_ctx *c, struct dentry *temp) > > > > } > > > > > > > > inode_lock(temp->d_inode); > > > > - if (c->metacopy) > > > > + if (S_ISREG(c->stat.mode)) > > > > err = ovl_set_size(temp, &c->stat); > > > > if (!err) > > > > err = ovl_set_attr(temp, &c->stat); > > > > > > > > There is no special reason IMO to try to spare an unneeded ovl_set_size > > > > if it simplifies the code a bit. > > > > > > We can try this but I'm afraid that someone could complain > > > we do unnecessary ovl_set_size() in the case of full copy-up > > > or data-end file's copy-up. > > > > > > > > > > There is no one to complain. > > The cost of ovl_set_size() is insignificant compared to the cost of > > copying data (unless I am missing something). > > Please post a version as above and if Miklos finds it a problem, > > we can add a boolean c->should_set_size to the copy up context, initialize > > it: c->should_set_size = (S_ISREG(c->stat.mode) && c->stat.size) > > and set it to false in case all data was copied. > > I think that won't be necessary though. > > > > I forgot to mention that there are two callers of ovl_copy_up_data() > and ovl_copy_up_meta_inode_data() even don't have logic to set size. Because set_size was already done during meta copy up and "data copy up" does not need to change the size again. > So do you still think set size in ovl_copy_up_inode() is simpler than > set size inside ovl_copy_up_data()? > Yes. One line change is simpler. Thanks, Amir.
