On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:30:30AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Does this fix the problem or does it just make it less likely that it > becomes apparent?
Sorry for not making this clearer in my commit message. I haven't been able to reproduce the corruption with the fiemap flag change. > If there is a data corruptor, we need to fix it, not just ensure that > only the less common environments are affected. I agree. I believe that the FIEMAP_FLAG_SYNC flag change fixes the corrupter and then, as you say, makes that code less commonly executed. > That looks like a logically separate change, so it should probably be > a separate patch. Sure I can do that, and be more explicit about the reason in the commit message. > Is this fix for the corruptor? The commit message doesn't make it > clear. If so and fiemap is safe now, why would we still prefer > seek_hole? The preference for seek_hole was a suggestion from Pádraig Brady , so I'll let him defend that :) but as I said above I think it was about reducing the situations where fiemap was/is called. Tony.
pgp19uz_IjiQT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
