Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] lazytime fix and cleanups

Eric Biggers
2021-01-11T20:45:41Z

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 04:15:17PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri 08-01-21 23:58:51, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Patch 1 fixes a bug in how __writeback_single_inode() handles lazytime
> > expirations. I originally reported this last year
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200306004555.GB225345@gmail.com) because it
> > causes the FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY ioctl to not work properly, as
> > the bug causes inodes to remain dirty after a sync.
> >
> > It also turns out that lazytime on XFS is partially broken because it
> > doesn't actually write timestamps to disk after a sync() or after
> > dirtytime_expire_interval. This is fixed by the same fix.
> >
> > This supersedes previously proposed fixes, including
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200307020043.60118-1-tytso@mit.edu and
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325122825.1086872-3-hch@lst.de from last
> > year (which had some issues and didn't fix the XFS bug), and v1 of this
> > patchset which took a different approach
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210105005452.92521-1-ebiggers@kernel.org).
> >
> > Patches 2-12 then clean up various things related to lazytime and
> > writeback, such as clarifying the semantics of ->dirty_inode() and the
> > inode dirty flags, and improving comments. Most of these patches could
> > be applied independently if needed.
> >
> > This patchset applies to v5.11-rc2.
>
> The series look good to me. How do you plan to merge it (after resolving
> Christoph's remarks)? I guess either Ted can take it through the ext4 tree
> or I can take it through my tree...
>

I think taking it through your tree would be best, unless Al or Ted wants to
take it.

I'll probably separate out
"xfs: remove a stale comment from xfs_file_aio_write_checks()",
since it isn't really related anymore and could go in through the XFS tree.

- Eric