On 07/17/2012 03:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:15:56PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This is v3 of the patch. >> >> We can trigger BUG() in xfs_seek_data() if met two unwritten without data or hole extents at last version. >> So making the extents map reading in loop could solve it. >> >> Sorry, Am not yet try the repeated holes scenario according to Dave's comments as lack of X64 test env, still >> waiting for it ready. But this patch is already too long delayed, I have worked it out one weeks ago. >> So I'd like to post it because of it could handle repeated hole/unwritten extents well in a loop, and I also improved >> xfstests:286 with those cases for the verification, will post it soon. >> >> v2->v3: >> Tested by Mark, hit BUG() for continuous unwritten extents without data wrote. >> * xfs_seek_data(), remove BUG() and having extents map search in loop. > > The patch looks good. But as question by Mark I wonder if it's a good > idea to just improve xfs_seek_data, but not xfs_seek_hole. I definitely would like to improve it. Thanks, -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
