From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tytso@mit.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: quota_write cross block boundary behaviour Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:15:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20100302131532.GF6077@thunk.org> References: <1266338022-24298-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <20100216184654.GD3153@quack.suse.cz> <878wab6p3s.fsf@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Monakhov Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:45978 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752237Ab0CBNPe (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:15:34 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878wab6p3s.fsf@openvz.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:37:43PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > Jan Kara writes: > > > On Tue 16-02-10 19:33:41, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > >> We always assume what dquot update result in changes in one data block > >> But ext4_quota_write() function may handle cross block boundary writes > >> In fact if this ever happen it will result in incorrect journal credits > >> reservation. And later bug_on triggering. As soon this never happen the > >> boundary cross loop is NOOP. In order to make things straight > >> let's remove this loop and assert cross boundary condition. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov > > Yeah, originally I thought it might be useful to support a possibility of > > multiblock writes but in the end we never needed it and currently e.g. OCFS2 > > would already BUG on that so yes, this is a good simplification. > > Acked-by: Jan Kara > > > > I've merged the ext3 version of the patch into my tree. Ted, will you > > merge this ext4 cleanup please? > Ted please take a look at the patch. Sorry, I had lost track of this patch. I've added it to the ext4 patch queue. - Ted