All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, sandeen@redhat.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:16:27 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090512044627.GA6753@skywalker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090512030856.GI21518@mit.edu>

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:08:56PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 04:09:29PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > ext4_get_blocks_wrap does a block lookup requesting to
> > allocate new blocks. A lookup of blocks in prealloc area
> > result in setting the unwritten flag in buffer_head. So
> > a write to an unwritten extent will cause the buffer_head
> > to have unwritten and mapped flag set. Clear hte unwritten
> > buffer_head flag before requesting to allocate blocks.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> I've rewritten the commit changelog to this, which I believe more
> accurately describes the patch.  Comments, please?
> 
> ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag after the extent is initialized
> 
> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> The BH_Unwritten flag indicates that the buffer is allocated on disk
> but has not been written; that is, the disk was part of a persistent
> preallocation area.  That flag should only be set when a get_blocks()
> function is looking up a inode's logical to physical block mapping.
> 
> When ext4_get_blocks_wrap() is called with create=1, the uninitialized
> extent is converted into an initialized one, so the BH_Unwritten flag
> is no longer appropriate.  Hence, we need to make sure the
> BH_Unwritten is not left set, to avoid the ensuing confusion and
> hilarty.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
> 

I think it is good. But one thing missing in the commit message is,
what happens if we do a write to prealloc space. Since a
get_block(create = 1) is now split into __get_block(create = 0 )  and
__get_block(create = 1). That would mean if we pass a buffer head with
BH_Unwritten cleared we will have


1) buffer_head as BH_Unwritten cleared.

2) __get_block(create = 0 ) -> Since it is prealloc space we will have
BH_Unwritten set .

3) __get_block(create = 1) -> get the blocks out of prealloc space.
and retun with BH_Mapped set. 

That would imply we have BH_Unwritten and BH_Mapped set in the above
case which is wrong. So we need a BH_Unwritten clear between (2) and
(3). The patch does the same. May be we need to capture it in commit
message.

-aneesh




  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-12  4:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-07 10:39 [PATCH 1/3] ext4: Properly initialize the buffer_head state Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-07 10:39 ` [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-07 10:39   ` [PATCH 3/3] vfs: Add BUG_ON for delayed and unwritten extents in submit_bh Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-07 15:37     ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-12  3:17     ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12  4:52       ` [PATCH 3/3] vfs: Add BUG_ON for delayed and unwritten extentsin submit_bh Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-12 13:25         ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-07 15:36   ` [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly Eric Sandeen
2009-05-08  8:12     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-12  3:08   ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12  4:46     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2009-05-13 18:56       ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-13 22:28         ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-14  6:00           ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-14  5:40         ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-14 13:14           ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-07 15:20 ` [PATCH 1/3] ext4: Properly initialize the buffer_head state Eric Sandeen
2009-05-10 23:57   ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-11  9:24     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-11 11:31       ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-11 14:49     ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-12  3:17 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12  4:47   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090512044627.GA6753@skywalker \
    --to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.