From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:50585 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754455AbdKFXpA (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2017 18:45:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] btrfs: use i_size_read() instead of open code To: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20171106083618.7617-1-anand.jain@oracle.com> <20171106083618.7617-4-anand.jain@oracle.com> <20171106165215.GQ28789@twin.jikos.cz> From: Anand Jain Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:44:59 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171106165215.GQ28789@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/07/2017 12:52 AM, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 04:36:14PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >> As i_size_read() takes care of 32bit smp or preempt cases as well. > > Can bdev->bd_inode->i_size change so that we need to use the > i_size_read()? My answer is 'no'. Hm. Right I was looking at it only from the theoretical point of view. And I presume you mean to say disk resize at the block layer is not really a practically achievable concern. Thanks, Anand