On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:56:24PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:36:49AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > This is a stab at fixing the regression discussed in this[1] thread
> > based on what Christoph mentioned regarding use of the IOMAP_F_NEW flag.
> > I decided to co-opt the XFS_BMAPI_ENTIRE flag for the delalloc res bit
> > since it seems logically equivalent, but we could define a new flag too.
> > I considered as such to preserve default behavior of
> > _reserve_delalloc(), but otoh there is only one other caller. Otherwise,
> > this passes all of my testing so far. Thoughts?
>
> I don't like reusing the flag that much, but I think instead of passing
> the flag we could trivially just remove the xfs_bmbt_get_all in
> xfs_bmapi_reserve_delalloc and let the caller handle it after
> xfs_bmapi_reserve_delalloc returned. That being said I see no good
> reason why the COW would care to see the merged extent, so
> unconditionally removing it should be fine as well. Or did I miss
> something?
I think that's correct. The reflink code just feeds got into a
tracepoint and otherwise doesn't seem to care what's returned.
My only concern is that the behavior of not updating got seems
inconsistent with the rest of the bmap code. I also realize now that
this case may have broken the subsequent ASSERT() calls in terms of
their effectiveness (i.e., I'm not reproducing failures, but they sort
of become no-ops).
We could rename the got param and/or update a local record structure to
feed into the asserts, but that kind of confuses the input param
requirements for got (which should be filled in based on a previous
lookup), so I don't like that too much either. Hmm, what about instead
of adding flags, we just add a new, optional output param that returns
the allocated range? E.g.:
int
xfs_bmapi_reserve_delalloc(
struct xfs_inode *ip,
int whichfork,
xfs_fileoff_t off,
xfs_filblks_t len,
xfs_filblks_t prealloc,
struct xfs_bmbt_irec *got, /* full rec after alloc */
xfs_extnum_t *lastx,
int eof,
struct xfs_bmbt_irec *arec) /* allocation performed */
{
...
if (arec)
arec = ...;
...
}
The reflink code could just pass NULL, the iomap code will use arec
explicitly to document the requirement, and the function behavior should
be clear enough to avoid landmines from any future callers. Thoughts?
Brian
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
