From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q6HCSjZ9076178 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:28:45 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id tTYNku16eTYy8uDf (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50055A48.50608@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:27:52 +0800 From: Jeff Liu MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xfs: probe data buffer from page cache for unwritten extents References: <4FF29C2C.2000407@oracle.com> <20120717071802.GA15473@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20120717071802.GA15473@infradead.org> Reply-To: jeff.liu@oracle.com 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: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 07/17/2012 03:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:15:56PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This is v3 of the patch. >> >> We can trigger BUG() in xfs_seek_data() if met two unwritten without data or hole extents at last version. >> So making the extents map reading in loop could solve it. >> >> Sorry, Am not yet try the repeated holes scenario according to Dave's comments as lack of X64 test env, still >> waiting for it ready. But this patch is already too long delayed, I have worked it out one weeks ago. >> So I'd like to post it because of it could handle repeated hole/unwritten extents well in a loop, and I also improved >> xfstests:286 with those cases for the verification, will post it soon. >> >> v2->v3: >> Tested by Mark, hit BUG() for continuous unwritten extents without data wrote. >> * xfs_seek_data(), remove BUG() and having extents map search in loop. > > The patch looks good. But as question by Mark I wonder if it's a good > idea to just improve xfs_seek_data, but not xfs_seek_hole. I definitely would like to improve it. Thanks, -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs