On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 06:36:45AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I'd be much more happy about fixing this properly in nfsd. So would I, but we've been saying that for years and it still ain't done.... > But I guess > the fix is simple enough that we can put it into XFS for now. Any > reason you use up a whole int in the inode instead of using a flag in > i_flags? I wasn't sure how many dirty releases we wanted before triggering the change of behaviour. A single dirty release seems to be fine in my testing so far, and if that continues then I think that , like you suggest, changing it to a flag in i_flags is the right thing to do. > > - > > - ASSERT(ip->i_delayed_blks == 0); > > + /* > > + * even after flushing the inode, there can still be delalloc > > + * blocks on the inode beyond EOF due to speculative > > + * preallocation. These are not removed until the release > > + * function is called or the inode is inactivated. Hence we > > + * cannot assert here that ip->i_delayed_blks == 0. > > + */ > > Shouldn't this be in a separate patch given that we can fail the flush > due to iolock contention? I think this and the swapext fix are .37 > material in fact. Agreed. I should have noted in the series preamble that I thought these probably need splitting out into separate bug fixing patches rather than being lumped in here. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
