From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.141]:2559 "EHLO ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752656AbdC2WlT (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:41:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:41:10 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: move the inline directory verifiers Message-ID: <20170329224110.GL17542@dastard> References: <20170327230315.GB4864@birch.djwong.org> <20170328125104.GA4100@bfoster.bfoster> <20170328150047.GB4874@birch.djwong.org> <20170328151105.GC4100@bfoster.bfoster> <20170328172444.GE4100@bfoster.bfoster> <20170329182156.GC4864@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170329182156.GC4864@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Brian Foster , xfs On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:21:57AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:24:44PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:11:05AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 08:00:47AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 08:51:05AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 04:03:15PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > > The inline directory verifiers should be called on the inode fork data, > > > > > > which means after iformat_local on the read side, and prior to > > > > > > ifork_flush on the write side. This makes the fork verifier more > > > > > > consistent with the way buffer verifiers work -- i.e. they will operate > > > > > > on the memory buffer that the code will be reading and writing directly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also revise the verifier function to return -EFSCORRUPTED so that we > > > > > > don't flood the logs with corruption messages and assert notices. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > > > > > > --- > > > > > > v2: get the inode d_ops the proper way > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > What does this apply against? > > > > > > > > It ought to apply against the previous inline dir verifier patch. > > > > > > > > > > Hm, doesn't apply against [1] for me. Care to just repost these as a > > > series if the dependent code hasn't been merged yet? > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9626859/ > > > > > > > I lost track of the fact that the first patch went into -rc and thus > > confused myself over where this should apply. This applies to 4.11.0-rc4 > > and looks fine to me: > > Does anyone have a problem if I send this to Linus for 4.11-rc5? > I'd rather atone for my sins sooner than later. :) There's no urgency required here - it's just a cleanup patch. The code in the tree works fine, so why risk adding regressions at a late stage? Just add it to the for-next queue and let it soak until the merge window. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com