Re: [PATCH v2 19/35] ubifs: budget for inode in ubifs_dirty_inode if necessary

[Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 08/05/2015 04:11 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 13:48 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
>> In ubifs, we have to do a budget for inode before marking
>> it as dirty. But sometimes, we would call dirty_inode in vfs
>> which will not do a budget for inode. In this case, we have
>> to do a budget in ubifs_dirty_inode() by ourselvies.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
> Could you please explain some more the problem you are trying to solve.
> Locking looks confusing and broken. It looks like what you are
> expressing is that the 'ui_mutex' is optional, and this smells fishy.

Oh, yes, that's TRUE. This patch makes the locking broken. I am sorry
about it.
>
[...]
>
> Please, try to explain what you want to achieve some more. I am not
> sure I understand the end goal.

Okey, what I want here is to doing a budget for the inode in
.dirty_inode called by vfs. Currently, the all work is under the full
control of ubifs as the comment of @ui_mutex said. But the
dquot_disable() is doing a dirty_inode() without asking ubifs is that
allowed. So I want to do the budget in ubifs_dirty_inode() itself here.

But, that's INCORRECT. Yes, my bad. Thanx for your comment.

And I found another solution for it. To introduce a callback in quota
to allow filesystem to dirty inode in dquot_disable(). I believe that
works.

Anyway, I agree that this patch is a fishy one here. I will drop it
in next version and send a better solution for it. Of course, with
some more description for what I am doing. :)

Thanx a lot, Richard and Atem

Yang
>
> Artem.
> .
>