From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143] helo=radon.swed.at)
 by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
 id 1ZMN3j-0000Jx-2J
 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:14:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/35] ubifs: budget for inode in ubifs_dirty_inode if
 necessary
To: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk,
 jack@suse.cz, dedekind1@gmail.com, richard.weinberger@gmail.com
References: <1438235311-23788-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <1438235311-23788-20-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Message-ID: <55BFD98B.6020408@nod.at>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 23:13:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1438235311-23788-20-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

Am 30.07.2015 um 07:48 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
> In ubifs, we have to do a budget for inode before marking
> it as dirty. But sometimes, we would call dirty_inode in vfs
> which will not do a budget for inode. In this case, we have
> to do a budget in ubifs_dirty_inode() by ourselvies.

How is this commit related to quota support?

> Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  fs/ubifs/super.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/super.c b/fs/ubifs/super.c
> index 2491fff..bc57685 100644
> --- a/fs/ubifs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ubifs/super.c
> @@ -383,15 +383,38 @@ done:
>  	clear_inode(inode);
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * In theory, ubifs should take the full control of dirty<->clean
> + * of an inode with ui->ui_mutex. But there are callers of
> + * ubifs_dirty_inode in vfs without holding ui->ui_mutex and
> + * budgeting. So when we found the ui_mutex is not locked, we have
> + * to lock ui->ui_mutex by itself and do a budget by itself.
> + */
>  static void ubifs_dirty_inode(struct inode *inode, int flags)
>  {
>          struct ubifs_inode *ui = ubifs_inode(inode);
> +	int locked = mutex_is_locked(&ui->ui_mutex);
> +	struct ubifs_info *c = inode->i_sb->s_fs_info;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	if (!locked)
> +		mutex_lock(&ui->ui_mutex);
>  
> -	ubifs_assert(mutex_is_locked(&ui->ui_mutex));

So, currently this assert can be reached? How?

Thanks,
//richard