On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:22:10AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> >> + ret = ext4_es_remove_extent(inode, punch_start,
> >> + EXT_MAX_BLOCKS - punch_start - 1);
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem);
> >> + goto out_stop;
> >> + }
> >
> > Doing this at first is probably a bad idea; you should do this at the
> > end, and then completely invalidate the es cache for that inode. That
> > way, the right thing happens if you get an error in the middle
> > releasing the boxes and shifting the extents:
> Okay, I see.
Actually, thinking about this some more, we do want to do this first,
since if we error out, we do need to make sure the extent cache is
flushed.
> If there is error in the middle of extent shifting, the hole will
> present between the last shifted extent and the extent at which error
> happen so this will be consistent state.
> IMHO even if there is error in between the shift, filesystem will be
> in consistent state.
> Am I missing something?
No, I was wrong about that; you're right. The file will be in an
inconsistent statement, which will probably be highly confusing for
the application, but the file system will be fine.
So I withdraw my complaints. I'll do a bit more testing, but so far
the patch looks fine to me. Thanks for your reply and your work!
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
