OGAWA Hirofumi <hirof...@mail.parknet.co.jp> writes: >>> Don't we need to update ->i_disksize after cont_write_begin()? >> We don't need to update i_disksize after cont_write_begin. >> It is taken care by the fat_get_block after the allocation. >> For all write paths we align the mmu_private and i_disksize from >> fat_fill_inode and fat_get_block. > > fat_fill_inode() just set i_disksize to i_size. So, it is not aligned by > cluster size or block size. > > E.g. ->mmu_private = 500. Then, cont_write_begin() can set ->mmu_private > to 512 on some case. In this case, fat_get_block() will not be called, > because no new allocation. > > If this is true, it would be possible to have ->mmu_private == 512 and > ->i_disksize == 500. > > I'm missing something?
BTW, even if above was right, I'm not checking whether updating ->i_disksize after cont_write_begin() is right fix or not. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirof...@mail.parknet.co.jp> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
