From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] exofs: simple_write_end does not mark_inode_dirty Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:42:27 -0800 Message-ID: <20100104154227.0be385d9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <4B378EE5.7090807@panasas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel , open-osd , Al Viro , stable@kernel.org To: Boaz Harrosh Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:49948 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753812Ab0ADXne (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2010 18:43:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B378EE5.7090807@panasas.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:44:21 +0200 Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > exofs uses simple_write_end() for it's .write_end handler. But > it is not enough because simple_write_end() does not call > mark_inode_dirty() when it extends i_size. So even if we do > call mark_inode_dirty at beginning of write out, with a very > long IO and a saturated system we might get the .write_inode() > called while still extend-writing to file and miss out on the last > i_size updates. > > So override .write_end, call simple_write_end(), and afterwords if > i_size was changed call mark_inode_dirty(). > > It stands to logic that since simple_write_end() was the one extending > i_size it should also call mark_inode_dirty(). But it looks like all > users of simple_write_end() are memory-bound pseudo filesystems, who > could careless about mark_inode_dirty(). I might submit a > warning-comment patch to simple_write_end() in future. > > Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh You added this to linux-next without a "Cc: " to the changelog, so it won't be backported. However this patch should be backported, IMO.