From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B247F87 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:24:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E658F8033 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id XAoSpEz1fUygpYV6 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 14:24:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:24:33 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] xfs: add xfs_ilock_attr_map_shared Message-ID: <20131209222433.GY10988@dastard> References: <20131206203006.914776999@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131206203128.663030833@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131208223610.GE31386@dastard> <20131209181612.GA22183@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131209181612.GA22183@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 10:16:12AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 09:36:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > + /* > > > + * Even after flushing the inode, there can still be > > > + * delalloc blocks on the inode beyond EOF due to > > > + * speculative reallocation. These are not removed > > > > "speculative preallocation" > > I just re-indented the comment, the wording is the original one. Maybe > we'll get a commit that cares enought to fix it on the fly.. Actually, I checked that before commenting on it - the original comment is correct: 626 /* 627 * even after flushing the inode, there can still be delalloc 628 * blocks on the inode beyond EOF due to speculative 629 * preallocation. These are not removed until the release 630 * function is called or the inode is inactivated. Hence we 631 * cannot assert here that ip->i_delayed_blks == 0. 632 */ I wouldn't have pointed at it if the original code had that problem... :/ Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs