Re: [External] : Re: [WIP RFC PATCH] fs: retire I_WILL_FREE

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 05:19:04PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 5:16 PM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 4:03 PM Mark Tinguely <mark.tinguely@oracle.com> wrote:
> > For now that would indeed work in the sense of providing the expected
> > behavior, but there is the obvious mismatch of the filesystem claiming
> > the inode should not be dropped (by returning 0) and but using a side
> > indicator to drop it anyway. This looks like a split-brain scenario
> > and sooner or later someone is going to complain about it when they do
> > other work in iput_final(). If I was maintaining the layer I would
> > reject the idea, but if the actual gatekeepers are fine with it...
> >
> > The absolute best thing to do long run is to move the i/o in
> > ->evict_inode, but someone familiar with the APIs here would do the
> > needful(tm) and that's not me.
> 
> I mean the best thing to do in the long run is to move the the write
> to ->evict_inode, but I don't know how to do it and don't have any
> means to test ocfs2 anyway. Hopefully the ocfs2 folk will be willing
> to sort this out?

gfs2 calls write_inode_now() from ->evict_inode, so it is definitely
possible to do this.

However, given that ocfs2 is largely a legacy filesystem these days,
I suspect that you are going to have to do this conversion yourself
if you want this approach to progress in a timely manner. :/

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com