From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE00DC43381 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 04:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C410D20857 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 04:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725974AbfCCE50 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Mar 2019 23:57:26 -0500 Received: from nautica.notk.org ([91.121.71.147]:45826 "EHLO nautica.notk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725871AbfCCE5Z (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Mar 2019 23:57:25 -0500 Received: by nautica.notk.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 034D8C009; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 05:57:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 05:57:08 +0100 From: Dominique Martinet To: Hou Tao Cc: v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, lucho@ionkov.net, ericvh@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xingaopeng@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] 9p: use inode->i_lock to protect i_size_write() under 32-bit Message-ID: <20190303045708.GB15658@nautica> References: <20190124063514.8571-1-houtao1@huawei.com> <20190124063514.8571-2-houtao1@huawei.com> <20190124065733.GA21444@nautica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Hou Tao wrote on Sat, Mar 02, 2019: > I can not find the patch in your tree [1], so will the patch be landed in v5.1 ? > Or are you expecting a v3 patch ? Hmm right, sorry - I just didn't have much time for this and hoped I could find time to sort the discussion we had on the second patch to take both at once, but this definitely won't happen for 5.1 so I should take the first patch for now. Will do that today after basic tests have finished. I should have taken it into -next earlier in principle but it can still make it in 5.1, thanks for the reminder. As for i_blocks, after some more thought and discussing off-list with Jeff (Layton), I'm more or less decided that the best would be to make this up straight from the size whenever size is updated. "blocks" on a network FS does not really make sense to me but I definitely want to avoid the case we have with i_blocks being 0 immediately after writing to a new file. After your first patch I think the simplest thing to do would be to just update i_blocks together with i_size in v9fs_i_size_write(). That's not a new bug however so I don't want to rush this in for 5.1 this late in the cycle so will take a more conservative approach on this one, feel free to send a patch otherwise I will do once the next cycle starts. -- Dominique