From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o5F2HWjZ066688 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:17:32 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id AFE883C7A22 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail14.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.99]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ESQ9ye9B5L5evERr for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:19:44 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: new truncate sequence Message-ID: <20100615021944.GQ6590@dastard> References: <20100614091731.GA22088@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100614091731.GA22088@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: npiggin@suse.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 05:17:31AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Convert XFS to the new truncate sequence. We still can have errors after > updating the file size in xfs_setattr, but these are real I/O errors and lead > to a transaction abort and filesystem shutdown, so they are not an issue. > > Errors from ->write_begin and write_end can now be handled correctly because > we can actually get rid of the delalloc extents while previous the buffer > state was stipped in block_invalidatepage. > > There is still no error handling for ->direct_IO, because doing so will need > some major restructuring given that we only have the iolock shared and do not > hold i_mutex at all. Fortunately leaving the normally allocated blocks behind > there is not a major issue and this will get cleaned up by xfs_free_eofblock > later. > > Note: the patch is against Al's vfs.git tree as that contains the nessecary > preparations. I'd prefer to get it applied there so that we can get some > testing in linux-next. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig It looks sane, but I haven't done any testing on it. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs